Live data from Hacker News

Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

home.treasury.gov

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#211

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…

> changing the rules in the middle of the game.

That's literally how legal systems work.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#212

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…

Isn't the systemic risk exception exactly planning for cases like this ahead of time?

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#213

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…

How can they change the rules? Surely it’s already written into law… right? Are they actually able to unilaterally decide to tax banks to fill up their rainy day fund?

My guess is that they’re not changing the rules, they’re utilizing them. Either that, or they have far too much executive power over banks. Which would be shocking.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#214

So they made their decision, everyone can move on. I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty. The idea of some noble class of investors championing disruption is dead. They're just a bunch of rent seekers like everybody else. For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke. It's great at a personal level that "foun…

I don't understand this comment. 1) SVB was not managed by VC's. 2) SVB went under because they bought US Treasuries, not because they took risky bets on startups.

"I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty."

The point is that these VC's didn't act to support their investments, they flailed around begging for bailout (that they probably didn't need but they didn't understand banking well enough to know that or bother to consult any experts before making public statements).

They behaved badly and should be embarrassed and everyone should remember it.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#215

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…

I never thought Mnuchin was the most competent of all people but regardless of how this particular SVB saga plays out, Yellen has to be one of, if not, the most incompetent treasury Secretary of the recent past.

She came into power and the first thing she did was suggest a global minimum tax rate, as if that would have fixed the accounting tricks that companies use to reduce the actual tax they pay.

Disconnecting the Russian central bank from swift and an oil and gas price cap have been immensely damaging for the western financial system and the international standing of the dollar(and the euro).

We now have countries increasingly integrating with alternative bank messaging systems and an accelerating of US reserve sell offs, along with what seems like the initial steps of the creation of something like an OPEC alternative for gas.

Not only that, it seems that because they never coordinated the sanctions with the banks it seems like only ~30 billion of the supposed 300 billion of frozen Russian assets can be accounted for, meaning they got to pull their money out and meanwhile the Russian on the other just from 150 billion in return.

Get this incompetent person out the door before she destroys more of the USs financial system.

“We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage. It's the same with oil or gas.” - Milton Friedman

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#216

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…

I view it kind of like parenting. Depending on what kind of kid you’ve raised you may not want to signal to them that no matter what you’ll financially bail them out. Hoping they’ll make the right choices.

Who are the kids in this analogy? It seems like what's at issue is whether or not depositors are protected (executives, shareholders, and creditors are all getting the shaft). Do you think depositors should have made different choices, and if so, which?

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#217

What if the Federal Reserve offered retail banking. Would it stabilize the banking sector? They wouldn’t be forced to try to find loans to pay interest on deposits. Where do private banks add value over what the Fed could do. ELI5.

The banks don’t want the competition but in theory it could be done, perhaps through the USPS, and as a modified form of I-bonds or something.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#218

This is 100% a bailout and the wording that “no losses […] will be borne by the taxpayer” is a shameful misrepresentation. Just because a bunch of VCs and founders didn’t realize they were at risk of this happening if they kept all their money in one bank, they still bear the responsibility of their losses. Looking forward to this new future where uninsured deposits are actually 100% backed by the FDIC, so actually i…

Not really. If 5 or 6 more regional banks fail next week due to depositors seeking the safety of big banks there won’t be enough money to guarantee deposits for more banks.

If they didn’t guarantee the SVB depositors that outcome would have been almost guaranteed, the train wreck would have impacted de-risked companies too, because the entire regional banking system would implode.

Not acting now to stop contagion because of some idea of fairness is short sighted.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#219
post #42

Wow, here’s the real news: > Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. Note the uninsured depositors clause in there — FDIC &co seem to have acted unilaterally to extend deposit insurance beyond the 250k and to the full amounts of any deposit account. And they are charging the banks for it. If this doesn’t stop a ru…

> Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. how do you interpret this part? what is an example of somebody who would be an unsecured debtholder? as in somebody with a stake in SVB the buisness? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIVB/

> how do you interpret this part? what is an example of somebody who would be an unsecured debtholder? as in somebody with a stake in SVB the buisness?

Bondholders, not just shareholders.

The implication is that every security here is wiped out: https://ir.svb.com/shareholder-and-bondholder-information/of...

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#220

This is 100% a bailout and the wording that “no losses […] will be borne by the taxpayer” is a shameful misrepresentation. Just because a bunch of VCs and founders didn’t realize they were at risk of this happening if they kept all their money in one bank, they still bear the responsibility of their losses. Looking forward to this new future where uninsured deposits are actually 100% backed by the FDIC, so actually i…

What’s the moral hazard in the FDIC insuring a much larger number than 250k?

exactly what the parent comment said - an incentive to not take steps to reduce your risk, leading to more situations like this
Post reply on HN