161–170 of 1001 posts
> No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer. i'm out of touch with how much of this works, can someone explain how this is paid without burden to the taxpayer?
Ah cool, so you’re:
(1) revoking the bailout money you took from us for the 2008 and 2020 crises
(2) disallowing overdraft fees
(3) reimplementing glass steagall
(4) firing yourselves and then immediately committing seppukku
Like my God, can the wording get any more toothless and cynical? “We know you don’t trust us, and you know we don’t care, but for fear of the nameless void possibly transmogrifying into an angry mob of tens of millions of Americans, we will keep up appearances.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This probably sealed the deal: > We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. Two closures in three days is a sign that you have to take this very seriously.
This is going to put every regional bank on the map for short sellers as equity holders are being wiped out in these cases without depositors being affected. Why would anyone invest in any regional bank with the risk of a equity wipeout day to day?
Because some have better books and management than others and will be underpriced because of reactionary selloffs like you describe?
So, is this a bailout, that we are definitely absolutely not calling a bailout?
> As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer. > Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed.
And those costs will be paid by anyone with a bank account.
How is this not a bailout?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In cases where you can't predict the future appropriately, sometimes it's better to make prudent decisions that help everyone instead of attempting to punish the sinful. Keep in mind that bank shareholders and senior management are going to get wiped out and fired.
You mean those executives that sold their shares of the bank weeks before, ending up with with fat stacks and completely unaffected? Yeah I kinda doubt they'll get what's coming to them unfortunately. Insider trading's only a crime when it's poor people doing it.
I'm just curious, who was running the investment / risk team at SVB and why should they get a pass for doing such a terrible job?
They've been fired and their bank has been shut down. Not sure how they're getting a pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In cases where you can't predict the future appropriately, sometimes it's better to make prudent decisions that help everyone instead of attempting to punish the sinful. Keep in mind that bank shareholders and senior management are going to get wiped out and fired.
You mean those executives that sold their shares of the bank weeks before, ending up with with fat stacks and completely unaffected? Yeah I kinda doubt they'll get what's coming to them unfortunately. Insider trading's only a crime when it's poor people doing it.
And do you have any examples of poor people being charged with insider trading? Every case I have seen is rich people trading.
Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…
Does this statement reflect any shift in policy? Haven’t depositors always been first on the list to get paid, even their uninsured deposits? I don’t know if charging a special assessment to member banks is standard operating procedure, but that doesn’t sound like government intervention. It just sounds like reasonable operation of the FDIC.