401–410 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is there anything factually wrong with that statement or is this just a cheap attempt at an ad hominem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in the end, even if we could argue that SVB should have been more prescient, it is clear that the root cause of the problems is the actions of the government and the FED. No. SVB hid market to market losses by saying "these securities are held to maturity so I don't have to realize losses". THAT is the source of the problem. Not all banks did this. Sure excess liquidity was necessary for this behavior to be pos…
> No. SVB hid market to market losses by saying "these securities are held to maturity so I don't have to realize losses". THAT is the source of the problem. Not all banks did this. All major US banks - and all or virtually all US banks in general - have assets that are designated as held to maturity. Continuously marking all assets to market would create massive swings in banks' income and obscure the real gains and…
That appears to be untrue; the other banks hedged interest rate exposure.
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/cfr/working-papers/2006/2006-0...
See p6: "Larger banks are the predominant users of derivatives. ... Banks facing higher likelihood of financial distress manage their interest rate risks more - both by maintaining lower maturity GAPs and by engaging in higher derivatives activities. Consistent with the predictions of Froot et al. (1993), I find that the high growth banks and banks with less liquid assets engage in higher hedging activities"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a world where this splitting is normal. If SVB depositors had split their deposits up and stored them at other banks, other banks depositors would have done the same and split their deposits up - and stored some of them at SVB. So from FDIC's perspective, the total amount of deposits at every bank (and so the risk they take as an insurer) after this splitting is the same. FDIC insurance limited to 250k and a…
Ok, but since they now only have a small fraction instead of everything stored at SVB, they wouldn't have to withdraw all their deposits from all their different accounts when word gets out that SVB is unsafe. An being explicitly fully insured, a lot of them might not even have bothered to withdraw from SVB. How would that result in the same risk profile?
If every single depositor split their accounts up to always stay under the 250k limit at each bank, FDIC has to insure 100% of deposits at each bank. If there was no limit, and customers didn't split accounts, FDIC has to insure 100% of deposits at each bank.
For any individual bank failure the amount paid out by the FDIC will be the same under 100% deposit insurance vs 250k split deposits. The total deposits insured per bank is the same The behavior change (businesses less likely to panic in a run) is the same.
So it seems to me there isn't a meaningful risk difference to FDIC between this theoretical 250k split deposits world and a 100% deposit insurance world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, now that we have computers and money is just an entry in a database, why are banks even necessary for storing and moving money? The whole small bank and big bank issue is moot. Technology has long solved this problem so the government could roll out a solution where no one ever risks any deposits, no FDIC is needed, and no bailouts are ever needed.
This is the argument for CBDC. the Fed taking over deposits. The issue comes when you want to get a loan or mortgage. How does the Fed know if you're financially stable? How on earth can the Fed know how to centrally decide? In general the answer is: split the savings and investments in two different entities. One entity that saves but has forbidden to invest, and an independent entity that invests.
If the government essentially guarantees all deposits and generally decides who gets a mortgage … I am not sure what the main point of banks is for consumers apart from maybe charging exorbitant rates on credit cards.
There are always few (people who subscribe to an ideology that if applied universally would benefit their usual circumstances) in a (circumstance where applying that ideology would not benefit them)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly... they liquidate the bank's assets, payout the FDIC insured, and most of the depositors only lose about 10%... the shareholders would lose more... and the executives and board potentially lose everything to pay shareholders. That's how this is supposed to work under existing rules.
Why didn't the fed decide that course of action in this case? Seems the difference is small. Shareholders still lost everything, depositors lost nothing instead of 10% but that's a minor difference. Guess one difference is how long it'll take before depositors can access their money. Now they'll get it immediately. If they were waiting for liquidation of the banks assets, that would probably take longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stop giving these [bank] guys a pass... Indeed. Greg Becker, the CEO of SVB, was a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Fed, up until last Friday. If anyone had some insight about what federal monetary policy was doing, he should have.
> Greg Becker, the CEO of SVB, was a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Fed Isn't this like a massive conflict of interest? How is this legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm probably wrong more often than I'm right when it comes to politics on average. But libertarianism has been obviously illogical to me since I was about 15, half my lifetime ago. Since then I've spoken to some very intelligent libertarians at length and... nope, it still doesn't make any sense. It makes less sense than ever, in fact. At least when I was 15 I just thought they must be stupid, but no, not necessarily…
Check out the Dave Troy podcast Dave Troy Presents
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the argument for CBDC. the Fed taking over deposits. The issue comes when you want to get a loan or mortgage. How does the Fed know if you're financially stable? How on earth can the Fed know how to centrally decide? In general the answer is: split the savings and investments in two different entities. One entity that saves but has forbidden to invest, and an independent entity that invests.
The government guarantees a majority of mortgages, so the government already has standards that are commonly used to decide which home loans can be made: https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/economy/fa... If the government essentially guarantees all deposits and generally decides who gets a mortgage … I am not sure what the main point of banks is for consumers apart from maybe charging exorbitant rates o…
This reminds me of one of my favorite books from the past couple years, A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear. It’s a fascinating deep dive into an attempt to create a sort of libertarian utopia in a small town called Grafton, New Hampshire. The speed at which they arrive at “we need government services” after they eviscerate government services is… unsurprising. 10/10 I highly recommend it for anyone that’s interested in…
Libertarianism isn't "no government". Sounds like a strawman?