11–20 of 59 posts
IMHO, it feels like at minimum the regulators should have required that in exchange for reduced oversight for banks in the $50-$250B range - they should have reduced FDIC coverage for depositors and have been required a form to be filled out by existing and new customers to notify them of this reduction in coverage. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/barney-frank-pushed-to-ease-fin...
Run your bank off a cliff, require every rule be broken to save your bacon, and now ask people to reline your coffers with more deposits. Absolutely stunning... On second thought - SVB is apparently the safest place on the planet to park enormous amounts of cash. Why would you not deposit everything here? The Government will just save you if SVB screws it up again... right? Absolutely zero risk in parking everything…
Effectively there are two banks (Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A.) with de facto unlimited FDIC insurance, as there's explicit guarantee for all existing and new deposits.
There is no way this is permanent, right? What's the end goal of this? Rebuild confidence in SVB and then return to normal insurance? I think the first step they have to do if there is any hope of a successful relaunch, is a full rebrand.
Why do regulators never split banks up? [0] For people who talk so much about managing risk. Reminiscent of GHW Bush's complaint about eating broccoli.
Also, talking about concern about job losses and wider economic impact, compare to in 2020/1 when Congress was fetishizing daily about stimulus packages to save the airline industry, yet long-distance coach companies Greyhound/Boltbus and Megabus were simply quietly allowed to cease business.
[0]: https://www.americanbanker.com/news/regulators-willing-to-br...
> 1/17/2023 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other regulators would consider breaking up big banks that repeatedly fail to correct bad behavior, according to acting Comptroller Michael Hsu.
> Though financial regulators have long had the power to split up banks for incessant violations, Hsu's remarks at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday were the most explicit warning in recent memory of regulators' willingness to break apart large, chronically delinquent financial institutions.
Run your bank off a cliff, require every rule be broken to save your bacon, and now ask people to reline your coffers with more deposits. Absolutely stunning... On second thought - SVB is apparently the safest place on the planet to park enormous amounts of cash. Why would you not deposit everything here? The Government will just save you if SVB screws it up again... right? Absolutely zero risk in parking everything…
It isn't really the same bank nor the same CEO
This is a naked attempt to pump the value of SVB assets, and seek a less-than-fire-sale to another institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way this is permanent, right? What's the end goal of this? Rebuild confidence in SVB and then return to normal insurance? I think the first step they have to do if there is any hope of a successful relaunch, is a full rebrand.
Surely this is the ideal time for planning to split SVB into multiple banks, if the actual intent is to diversify risk (well is it?). Why do regulators never split banks up? [0] For people who talk so much about managing risk. Reminiscent of GHW Bush's complaint about eating broccoli. Also, talking about concern about job losses and wider economic impact, compare to in 2020/1 when Congress was fetishizing daily about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't really the same bank nor the same CEO
The result is the same. SVB has infinity insurance on all deposits, provided courtesy of the tax payer. This is a naked attempt to pump the value of SVB assets, and seek a less-than-fire-sale to another institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't really the same bank nor the same CEO
The result is the same. SVB has infinity insurance on all deposits, provided courtesy of the tax payer. This is a naked attempt to pump the value of SVB assets, and seek a less-than-fire-sale to another institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result is the same. SVB has infinity insurance on all deposits, provided courtesy of the tax payer. This is a naked attempt to pump the value of SVB assets, and seek a less-than-fire-sale to another institution.
All of the funds are provided from a fund the banks pay into. There is no taxpayer money supporting the depositors.
The funds will be recovered from special bank assessments, which means you and I will pay to bail out SVB and Signature via increased bank fees and more over the next decade. Not to mention the FDIC is guaranteeing depositors will be made 100% whole, which means again, you and I are guaranteeing the deposits if this special bank assessment comes up short or falls through.
So no, taxpayer money is not directly used - that part is true. But it is patently false that taxpayers will not be paying to bail these banks out.
It's a giant political game being played... avoid the look of a recession no matter what. Don't even speak the dreaded "B" word...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result is the same. SVB has infinity insurance on all deposits, provided courtesy of the tax payer. This is a naked attempt to pump the value of SVB assets, and seek a less-than-fire-sale to another institution.
Don’t all banks have that right now?
Run your bank off a cliff, require every rule be broken to save your bacon, and now ask people to reline your coffers with more deposits. Absolutely stunning... On second thought - SVB is apparently the safest place on the planet to park enormous amounts of cash. Why would you not deposit everything here? The Government will just save you if SVB screws it up again... right? Absolutely zero risk in parking everything…
It’s the Silicon Valley BRIDGE Bank. The one that was created by the government after shareholders were wiped out and the execs were fired, and new management was appointed.
Of course, a lot of operations, data, tech will continue. How else would they ensure customers etc are provided access to their funds and are able to carry out their regular banking services.