Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#231

Post by rayiner »

gerad wrote: post #199
manuelabeledo wrote: post #132

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…

I just don’t understand why folks on the internet are so passionate about the depositors being hit by this. In terms of avoiding moral hazard they are about as far down the list as possible, and bankruptcy law supports that. First stock holders get wiped out (common then preferred), then debt holders (folks who have lent money to SVB won’t get their money back), only then would it hit depositors - and in the case of…

Why shouldn’t depositors learn a lesson that they should get additional insurance beyond the $250,000?

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#232

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

a13n wrote: post #176
koolba wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? Easy, pay out $250K per account, then distribute the rest pro rata based upon closing balance from when the fed's took over. If they have to wait because assets need to be liquidated then sucks to be them. I'm sure they can get their money faster if they agree to a haircut. > “This is a bail…

This is short sighted. If the government doesn’t make depositors whole then people and companies all over the world lose trust in US banks and eventually US dollars. This is a federal problem. It makes sense to make depositors whole, they’re innocent here. It doesn’t make sense to make SVB whole for managing their risk poorly.

Yes, surely using the government to let private businesses run roughshod on the uninvolved public will prove that we are sufficiently exploitative to guarantee your money’s safety.

Don’t worry world, when push comes to shove, those who had nothing to do with it will bear the responsibility!

I don’t think that’s a better message for anyone.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#233

Post by drgath »

koolba wrote: post #153
manuelabeledo wrote: post #132

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…

> Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? Easy, pay out $250K per account, then distribute the rest pro rata based upon closing balance from when the fed's took over. If they have to wait because assets need to be liquidated then sucks to be them. I'm sure they can get their money faster if they agree to a haircut. > “This is a bail…

Have we yet deviated from FDIC rules? I don’t think so, even with what Yellen says. My limited understanding of the situation is that the assets to cover everything is there, they’re just tied up in long-term treasuries.

From the FDIC’s site:

> As of December 31, 2022, Silicon Valley Bank had approximately $209.0 billion in total assets and about $175.4 billion in total deposits.

For simplicities sake, let’s just assume 100% of the assets are actually there, but it’ll just take varying years for everything to mature. So, what’s next? FDIC finds a buyer for the assets, perhaps a private bank or a a pseudo-government body who has the ability to wait till maturity, and in the meantime, everyone gets all their deposits. That’s not a “bailout”, and is following the rules.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#235

Post by Denvercoder9 »

rib3ye wrote: post #133
fma wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If depositors get 100% back (I assume the government pays the difference between selling SBV assets & the deposits)...then what's the purpose of saying "FDIC Insured up to $250k"? It's a moot then isn't it? I don't need to go through the hassle of distributing my money anymore? Edit: I read the article. Yellen says "“But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.” She says NOT…

I think you’re beginning to get it. Consider time it takes to get your deposit back: FDIC says depositors will get $250k back on Monday morning (pretty incredible turnaround actually). For the rest, they will have to wait for assets to be sold.

> For the rest, they will have to wait for assets to be sold.

Actually, that's not completely true; FDIC also says that they'll pay an advance dividend to uninsured depositors next week. That likely won't be the full balance, but they'll get at least part of their deposits back before assets are sold.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#236

Post by Ekaros »

a13n wrote: post #176
koolba wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? Easy, pay out $250K per account, then distribute the rest pro rata based upon closing balance from when the fed's took over. If they have to wait because assets need to be liquidated then sucks to be them. I'm sure they can get their money faster if they agree to a haircut. > “This is a bail…

This is short sighted. If the government doesn’t make depositors whole then people and companies all over the world lose trust in US banks and eventually US dollars. This is a federal problem. It makes sense to make depositors whole, they’re innocent here. It doesn’t make sense to make SVB whole for managing their risk poorly.

And if it does. And sets new standards it leads to massive moral hazard and potential of even bigger and even worse failures in future. Why not run a ponzi scheme as bank if in the end tax payers or fed ends up making everyone whole. After you have spend years making money from fraud. With your depositors happily participating in as they have zero risk.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#237

Post by rayiner »

a13n wrote: post #176
koolba wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? Easy, pay out $250K per account, then distribute the rest pro rata based upon closing balance from when the fed's took over. If they have to wait because assets need to be liquidated then sucks to be them. I'm sure they can get their money faster if they agree to a haircut. > “This is a bail…

This is short sighted. If the government doesn’t make depositors whole then people and companies all over the world lose trust in US banks and eventually US dollars. This is a federal problem. It makes sense to make depositors whole, they’re innocent here. It doesn’t make sense to make SVB whole for managing their risk poorly.

They’re not “innocent” having chosen to put more than the insured amount in “Silicon Valley Bank.”

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#238

Post by NotACop182 »

senttoschool wrote: post #208
koolba wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? Easy, pay out $250K per account, then distribute the rest pro rata based upon closing balance from when the fed's took over. If they have to wait because assets need to be liquidated then sucks to be them. I'm sure they can get their money faster if they agree to a haircut. > “This is a bail…

I think the depositors should get a bit of a haircut if selling the assets don’t cover all deposits. For example, 5%. If it’s more than 5%, then the government steps in and pay for the rest. 5% seems like the right balance between the two extremes. Companies and people should pay a small penalty. At the same time, we shouldn’t rock the financial system further. We need to have confidence in the system. After this, th…

Government steps in and pays the rest? No, change the laws if this is the case. Why special treatment to help out but in any other scenario where tragic financial mishaps of regular folks you are given a pat on the shoulder and “good luck”. Pretty sure they have a write off tax wise for any additional loses.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#239

Post by [deleted] »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #132

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…

[deleted]

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#240

Post by gammarator »

koolba wrote: post #213
nonethewiser wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money to depositors for amounts greater than $250K is a bail out. They have no right to that money from the Feds. I’m surprised to hear this perspective. I think most people understand a bailout as cash injection. Not that you get more than what the government insures. If it were the latter then bailouts happen all the time without bank failures or FDIC takeovers (all transfer > 250k).

The $250K is the FDIC covered limit. Amounts greater than that are not insured by the Feds. If the bank fails, the Feds ensure that depositors get at least $250K per account. If SVB is insolvent than customer deposits are not worth their full value. The phrase “making all depositors whole” would be the Feds covering the difference. Anything beyond the $250K per account would be money that they are not entitled to per…

> Anything beyond the $250K per account would be money that they are not entitled to per US banking regulation.

This isn’t correct. SVB has assets which are still worth something, even if they are less than their total liabilities. Unsecured depositors are first in line for that money, and the $250k fdic insurance limit has nothing to do with it.

Post reply on HN