741–750 of 1001 posts
It's a bit embarrassing to have to invoke the systemic risk exception when regulations on these banks were relaxed in 2018 on the theory that they wouldn't pose a systemic risk if they got into trouble. This should spark some serious soul searching from everyone involved in that effort, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, I'm happy for all the depositors.
But yep, I'm happy with the ends, but honestly not that happy with the means.
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.
I mostly agree with this, but I feel like the past 25 years or so, ever since "the Greenspan put", has just gone more and more in the direction of telling people that they don't need to worry about doing adequate risk assessments, because if you have powerful people that yell loud enough, and you can cause enough damage, that Washington will come to the rescue. Eventually, I just don't see this ending well. As someon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks have lost all excuses to be making money out of other people's deposits. If those deposits are guaranteed by the government, and backstopped by the government, then there's absolutely no reason banks should be able to invest any of them. There's absolutely no excuse left for why banks get to invest any of their clients money. They get free leverage from their clients for free. They can send it to zero and the e…
The banks are still gone though, once they get taken over, their equity zeroes out. All owners of the bank will end up with nothing, I think that's a good enough deterrence against bad things.
No proof at the moment, but from what I've read several of the executives conveniently sold a lot of their stock more or less at the same time right before this kicked off. Guarantee at least some of that was some insider golden-parachuting.
I have never seen such cognitive dissonance here at HN -- which I feel is really saying something! As an SVB customer who had to wire payroll on Tuesday, our perspective is naturally sharpened, but I found the lack of empathy here over the weekend galling. On the one hand, this is understandable, and Silicon Valley has done much to earn collective distrust. On the other hand, this is emphatically not all of us: many…
There has been so many great reply to this comment already about how the lack of empathy is directed at the financial system itself rather than the small businesses and individuals directly impacted. The other thing that make it hard for me to have sympathy for a government backed solution is what makes these small companies and individuals anymore worthy of being 'bailed out' than any other small business that finds…
The depositor didn't do anything wrong, they had the full right to withdraw at anytime and they didn't make the decision to invest into long term illiquid low interest MBS in 2021.
“Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks”
So you as a taxpayer will not have to fund this bailout, unless you’re the kind of taxpayer with a bank account, in which case you’re going to be paying for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks have lost all excuses to be making money out of other people's deposits. If those deposits are guaranteed by the government, and backstopped by the government, then there's absolutely no reason banks should be able to invest any of them. There's absolutely no excuse left for why banks get to invest any of their clients money. They get free leverage from their clients for free. They can send it to zero and the e…
What's the point of cake if you can't eat it? You'd have to start charging for having the cake. The current practice of limited investment is reasonable and helps keep the system self funded without much in the way of account fees. It's not as if banks are investing the funds in the equity market. Appreciate I'm commenting from afar and without emotion but these failures are normal. This kind of chaos makes the syste…
At 10x leverage, when you're correctly assuming your customers will be bailed by the government instead of you getting criminally prosecuted, the worst you can lose is 100% of your money. With the kind of leverage you get in a bank, you don't even need to have positive expectation value investment to have positive expectation value for the bank shareholders.
even with completely trash odds of 50% chance of losing it all and 50% chance of earning only 20% with 10x free client deposit leverage, your expectation value is still 100%!
This is the moral hazard you're dealing with. At 10x leverage ratios of banks, they can take the worst possible bets and still win so long as their maximal loss is just losing all the investment.
You're just encouraging this behavior. This latest decision gives a huge incentives to all banks out there to blow out. Just the incentive structure alone is enough to collapse the entire financial system at this point. It was already eating itself and it's only going to get worse.
It's just a matter of time before they blow it beyond repair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy. I think everyone knew that already. Since 2008 at least. It's very possible that if this is not done, the only banks left at the end of the week will be the "too big to fail" ones. A domino effect is very hard to prevent when it's based entirely on consumer confidence and those consum…
> It's very possible that if this is not done, the only banks left at the end of the week will be the "too big to fail" ones. I don't get it. Doesn't the unlimited FDIC insurance encourage mega-banks? If funds were only insured up to 250k, wouldn't that just mean we would have to spread money across multiple banks. And sure some banks would be wiped out but new better banks would take their place. It's not a closed s…
It's a bailout. They're putting the cost, presently unknown and probably not huge, on the other banks. But the message to depositors everywhere, of every size, is "don't worry about your bank's solvency, we'll protect you". So market scrutiny is removed as a discipline on bank asset strategy. That leaves regulation as the only control. That politicizes and bureaucratizes bank lending. And the general presumption that…
I would add, it's just hilarious to see so many claim "it's not a bailout because shareholders were wiped out!" Everyone knows bailouts are bad, and that people shouldn't rely on them. But they want their money, so of course _their_ protection isn't a "bailout". It's just . . . depositors made whole! Yah. A "bailout" is any injection that makes whole any interested party facing losses. As in "The depositors were bail…
If a drunk driver is doing 120 mph on a freeway and crashed into a normal motorist and sent him to the hospital. The right argument or response isn't that he should've seen it coming in the rare view mirror and moved a lane over.
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…
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…