11–20 of 145 posts
If true, it would seem that some of this panic would have been engineered in order to save VC capital at the expense of the rest of us?
---
edit: We really need an analysis of @Jason and @DavidSacks w.r.t [1][2]. They were touting Doomsday on their AllInPodcast[3] but with [1][2] I'm starting to wonder...
[1]: https://twitter.com/innoc_bystander/status/16347730533046108...
That's not why I have a bank account. It's how you avoid paying fees to get checks cashed. If you want interest, you put it in a savings account, or a CD, also in a bank. The only safe alternative is savings bonds.
If you want to gamble the money, then you invest in stocks, bonds, etc.
>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…
The “systemic risk” exceptions that are in the legislation and announcements over the weekend mean this is exactly how it works.
My guess is that this will be continued - perhaps even publicly formalized - or small banks will cease to exist very quickly in favour of those that are too big to fail.
>Banks are, at their core, facilitators: depositors lend their money to a bank, for which they are paid interest, and banks lend that money out, again for interest. That's not why I have a bank account. It's how you avoid paying fees to get checks cashed. If you want interest, you put it in a savings account, or a CD, also in a bank. The only safe alternative is savings bonds. If you want to gamble the money, then yo…
>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…
I would imagine the people advocating for a 'bailout' (using the most generous possible definition here) want this to become how it works.
Like how in Germany the government guarantees every German bank balance.
I have enough problems, I don't want to have to worry that my bank balance will disappear unless I spread it around in order to abuse a technicality.
>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…
The FDIC limit is basically useless at this level. 250k for SVB given their clientele really seems futile.
So I'm not sure even discussing it would serve much value. What I fund more interesting was the UK branch of SVB was actually higher in assets than liabilities and was making profit. It's just so strange to me still how this seems to have happened so quickly and seemingly, made worse by some people just getting worried.
>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…
I have this innovative idea for business. Imagine you charge money from depositors for keeping their money in a big safe vault. No trading or lending their money. You just keep it safe.
>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…
>But that's not how it works! I would imagine the people advocating for a 'bailout' (using the most generous possible definition here) want this to become how it works. Like how in Germany the government guarantees every German bank balance. I have enough problems, I don't want to have to worry that my bank balance will disappear unless I spread it around in order to abuse a technicality.