Live data from Hacker News

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

home.treasury.gov

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

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…

>how prominent VCs behaved

How did they behave? Try to pull their money out of a failing bank?

I would too ...

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

#232

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…

One of the key components of a bailout is that the company still exists. In this case, the company does not exist any more, and all shareholders have lost their stock.

So whilst there may be some superficial appearance of a bailout (and we don't yet know how much that is, as we don't actually know the value of the assets that are recoverable), it is inaccurate to say that this is "100% a bailout".

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

#233
post #99

So much for moral hazard. Capitalism is supposed to be about profit and loss, you bail out the losers, there is no end to the loss. I guess we still haven't learned the lessons from 2008. Effective regulation should have been put in place to oversee that banks are effectively managing their risks. Not bailing out companies whenever times get tough.

> you bail out the losers, there is no end to the loss The difference here is that the "losers" made was supposed to be an incredibly safe bet. The people who made the actual bad bets are all losing their jobs. Shareholders are getting nothing (ish). It's the customer who's getting protected, here. > I guess we still haven't learned the lessons from 2008 Not my observation, but it's more like we were fighting the las…

There are thousands and thousands of banks to choose from. Why did they pick this particular bank? High rates? Connections to the right people? It's not like it's the only bank in the Valley, much less the country. They chose to be with that bank above all others. That was their freedom, their choice. Now everyone with a bank account anywhere will have to pick up part of the cost for that choice.

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

#234
This is one of those situations where the Federal government is doing what it should be doing: protecting depositor funds, making banks pay for it and shareholders are left out in the cold if there's nothing left over.

Also, the speed with which this is happening going from SVB insolvency late last week to an asset auction today and depositor fund access tomorrow is astounding.

Most of this protection comes as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act passed in 2010 in the wake of the GFC. Senate and House Republicans largely voted against the bill. Remember that.

It's also worth remembering that this is a huge example of how ridiculous libertarianism and deregulation is.

Another takeaway is how central authority is a feature not a bug in the financial system. Just compar ethis to FTX or any other crypto collapse.

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

#235

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…

> prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty

A ton of the prominent VCs were writing out checks from their personal bank accounts so that founders could meet payroll.

> For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke

Wait seriously? You somehow lost more faith from this than you did from

- crypto - Adam Neumann - $100m seed rounds

and like 30 other things???

> But it's important to remember that they no longer automatically deserve any credit for taking risks and doing something new.

What are you even talking about?

Having your bank account randomly disappear isn't one of the risks that anyone should have to take.

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

#236

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…

Not much of a choice. Guarantee of the system takes highest precedence.

Although this problem was caused by bank malfeasance and yes this does imply de facto unlimited insurance, unlimited depositor insurance is kinda the whole point and is not itself a bad thing.

Yes, moral hazard is a huge consideration, but I don’t see depositor protection as encouraging future failures of this type, by encouraging bad risk taking by mgmt.

Rather, if banks bet their customers money unhedged on endless zero rate policy, as SVB did, there should be regulations that prevent it. Trace back to lobbying to exclude SVB from dodd frank regulations also at the heart of the crisis.

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

#238
A lot of people are asking “how is this not a bailout?” right now. I would caution against dismissing them, it’s a legitimate question. Pointing to the “Taxpayers will not pick up the bill” line counts as dismissive: this is a press release, and it’s from the government, that’s two strong reasons for some skepticism.

So, in earnest, how is it not a bailout? Feel free to offer your answer! Mine is:

“Banks are required by law to pay for insurance on deposits they take. FDIC stands for Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, and they are the ones that manage the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is where that insurance money goes. The FDIC is going to take from that fund to pay out all the depositors in SVB in one go on Monday morning, and then over the next few weeks and months it is going to sell off SVB’s assets and put the proceeds back into the fund. SVB has plenty of assets, so the FDIC expects to recover 99% of the money. If there’s a shortfall they will charge the banks a little extra in their next insurance payment, but keep in mind we’re talking about at most a few billion dollars spread over every bank; they are unlikely to pass on a small cost like that, but even if they do pass on the cost to the taxpayer it will be something like $10 per person maximum.”

Edit: if we take things like https://twitter.com/josephjacks_/status/1634569997266870272 at their word, the FDIC will likely see asset sales produce >100% of deposits, so absolutely no bailout of any kind. A good reminder that SBV didn’t die because they lied about their value or invested in financial instruments that exploded; they died because they didn’t have the cash on hand on the one day it mattered.

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

#239

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 really wish we could plan for these entirely foreseeable events ahead of time.

This is unlikely TBH. When a system this complex and a global clear visibility if offered to no one on the planet, foreseeing ALL risks isn't a possibility.

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

#240

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.

Curious there was nothing about silvergate?

Silvergate was already getting wound down, and unlike SVB and Signature didn't need a fed backstop.
Post reply on HN