101–110 of 1001 posts
“Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” Yellen said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess ( I havn't looked at is the last ones ) is that the majority of deposits were well under 250k, and that hundreds of thousands of jobs weren't on the line. Also, you are talking about a major banking collapse if people start thinking that their deposits aren't safe. (a lot of people will start pulling money, even if under 250k). There are so many irrational people out there... edit: I guess somewhere in what…
BusinessInsider[1] has a different view: >About 37,000 customers accounted for nearly $157 billion or 74% of the bank's assets with an average account size of over $4 million So it seems the opposite is almost true, because the accounts are valued so high with generally more flexible account holders, they're able to move swiftly [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-silicon-valley-bank-impl...
I think Yellen is signalling the right approach, frankly. First, the balance between the bank's assets (its loans and the investments it made with depositors money, plus the bank's capital) and its liabilities, is such that SVB has enough holdings to cover nearly all of its deposits. The banks capital (that is its equity, and subordinated debt) should all go toward making depositors whole. That's what bank capital is…
Honest question: why? I.e. why can't the capitalists invested in this business absorb the reasonable haircut? (I assume it's "reasonable" based on the information we have been provided with until now). Depositors (especially those holding more than 250k) were also investors, they were getting back more money than they had put in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, in the case of large retail banks, the government did help. In 2008, the federal government purchased stock in several banks in order to recapitalize them. One could argue this was a starker example of moral hazard than letting the bank fail, but making depositors whole.
Which is why you should always bank at a "too big to fail" institution. Why America has 4000 banks is beyond me. In my country they all consolidated in the 60s and 70s into a half a dozen giants.
My company used to bank with Bank of America. It was awful. They seemed to have no concept of how to work with small business or a tech startup. We moved to another bank (not svb) and it's been a much better experience.
Only leveraging the giants of a given industry is not good for innovation nor specialization.
This actually makes a ton of sense, lets not forget that a bailout in this term is really pointing towards saving the bank itself, and its shareholders. There is inherent risk in equity investments, and it likely should have to suffer for its poor decisions. But when it comes to depositors, I think it makes a lot of sense to make them whole, especially in the case of SVB where the bank likely has pretty close to enou…
Did they help depositors that lost money in the last 500+ bank collapses? Why do they get special treatment? The government has laws and rules the depositors are insured up to 250k. Either they liquidate and everyone takes a hair cut. Or they wait till the bonds mature and can pay them out. But the government should not relieve anyone past what is legally available.
The FDIC amount is a minimum, not a maximum.
But I agree, college loans should not be forgiven past what is legally available ($0).
The first step would be to stop calling them Depositors. They are not and were never Depositors. That is what you have deposit boxes for...You do not have money at the Bank. You loaned money to the Bank. That is why they pay you interest on it...
Says nothing real. For instance, will the rule for uninsured deposits be followed ? Or will there be a bailout for people with over $250,000 in deposits ? Seems all it says is "there will be no bailout but there will be a bailout". If people with over 250,000 in deposits are covered, the once again the the rich is allowed to avoid all risks for bad decisions.
I feel like putting your money in a bank should not be considered an obviously bad decision. The risk profile your bank takes on with your deposits is largely opaque to you, and it’s not feasible to expect every depositor to do due diligence on it. Even if you understood their portfolio you might not be able to understand the implications as market conditions change. It’s also not feasible to expect people to split up their deposit into multiple 250k accounts.
This is exactly the statement that's required, given the confusion and irresponsible politicization of deposit insurance. Shareholders lose 100%, depositors get 100% of their deposits back. It's a simple situation, and the former point (as opposed to the solution during the GFC) counteracts moral hazard.
I don't think she is saying (as of the article) that depositors will get 100% back. They will get help but could be with a haircut.