831–840 of 1001 posts
Yet another new precedent by the Fed and FDIC. All depositors are now guaranteed their funds if a bank fails. This is the definition of Moral Hazard [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
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…
I'm not sure how 100% accurate that list is considering that it only lists SVB for 2023, but not Signature bank, NY that failed on the same day[1].
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…
That’s an unrealistic utopian fantasy. The real world doesn’t even remotely lend itself to that kind of planning.
Even calling it “selective justice” involves an unrealistic bias. What is happening is that the particular circumstances are being weighed an a suitable response is being formulated.
The rulebook for planning for all such events ahead of time would not be that much shorter than the future history of human civilization.
The top ones in this and the main announcement thread [1] are just ad hominem complaining against some ostensibly "salty" or "cognitively dissonant" majority.
Let's talk about skin in the game and bailouts. Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money. Explain to him this game being played where he gains nothing when you win but loses when you lose. And please inform him the recourse he has should he disagree with sharing your loss.
No moral appeals about making payroll, no ad hominems about non-positivism or cognitive dissonance, no complaints about "saltiness".
I speak for many when I say I'd like to hear a proper explanation on this matter, in terms of skin in the game.
EDIT: The above comment takes the following to be bullshit (from the article):
"Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution...in a manner that fully protects all depositors...
No losses...will be borne by the taxpayer."
If these statements are true, can someone explain how it's possible that despositors are fully protected, far beyond what FDIC insures, without the taxpayer bearing any of the burden?
---
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…
One reason why it's not (mostly) a bailout is that SVB's deposits are (as far as we know) still backed by bonds and mortgage backed securities, the problem is that those securities can't be easily sold right now (because people want higher valued investments) - a sudden forced sale means selling at a loss (or a cash flow crisis which is how SVB got into this state), holding on to them and letting them play out and th…
A gentle sale at their leisure over the next six months would also mean selling at a loss.
We deserve to see more useful top comments on this matter. The top ones in this and the main announcement thread [1] are just ad hominem complaining against some ostensibly "salty" or "cognitively dissonant" majority. Let's talk about skin in the game and bailouts. Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money. Explain to him this game being played where he gains nothing when you…
We deserve to see more useful top comments on this matter. The top ones in this and the main announcement thread [1] are just ad hominem complaining against some ostensibly "salty" or "cognitively dissonant" majority. Let's talk about skin in the game and bailouts. Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money. Explain to him this game being played where he gains nothing when you…
Well.. in this specific case I don't think tax payers (I assume this is what you mean by "peasant") actually do share any of the risk/cost. The bank failed due to a liquidity problem. It actually has a pretty solid financial situation except for that! This isn't a "bail out" per se.
We deserve to see more useful top comments on this matter. The top ones in this and the main announcement thread [1] are just ad hominem complaining against some ostensibly "salty" or "cognitively dissonant" majority. Let's talk about skin in the game and bailouts. Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money. Explain to him this game being played where he gains nothing when you…
> Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money Well.. in this specific case I don't think tax payers (I assume this is what you mean by "peasant") actually do share any of the risk/cost. The bank failed due to a liquidity problem. It actually has a pretty solid financial situation except for that! This isn't a "bail out" per se.
Then why couldn't they find a buyer in the auction today? If Silicon Valley Bank had positive equity, someone would have bought them out for an easy profit.
We deserve to see more useful top comments on this matter. The top ones in this and the main announcement thread [1] are just ad hominem complaining against some ostensibly "salty" or "cognitively dissonant" majority. Let's talk about skin in the game and bailouts. Explain to a peasant why he should have to share the risk you took with your money. Explain to him this game being played where he gains nothing when you…
Sometimes those risks are bad, and banks cannot fulfill their obligations to their customers, so the FDIC, which is funded by banks (its deposit insurance) steps in and fixes a bank so that customers of that bank do not get screwed by picking a bad bank.
I dont see how any peasants are 'sharing any risk' here.
Everybody who held stock in SVB, just lost literally all of that. They invested in a bank that failed. Just like if they invested in a company that failed. Nobody is bailing those people out.