It goes beyond the ownership of this bank. The federal govt is bending rules of deposit insurance, at the cost of the taxpayer, either directly or indirectly. It's not as cut and dried as SVB as a siloed entity.
Bad message from the Fed and the Administration.
Conservatives should like this solution. Private enterprises going under and private enterprise funding the survival of the banking system.
Except it won't work that way. Private enterprise will go out of business, but the owners of that business will walk away unscathed, and the tax payers (not the market) will pay for it all.
There's a big difference when the people that cause the mess would actually have some liability for the mess they cause, and have to pay for that mess; but they don't and won't.
Just shut your dumb yaps. The repeal of government regulation and the moronic arrogance of the libertarian Venture Capital class (i.e. Republican donors) caused this.
Lol you haven't noticed the intersectionality redistribution drafts coming out of your savings account?!
Canary in the coal mine totally wasn't FTX or anything, which donated almost singlehandedly to Democrats.
They totally got 100% justice by sending SBF home on time out house arrest to play on his Ipad. Glad the depositors were totally made whole by clawing back donations from the Democrats.
Who thinks the crypto industry should be subject to significantly more scrutiny? Who has been ringing the alarm bells that crypto is a ponzi scheme? I'll give you a hint: Not conservatives and not libertarians.
Who supported rolling back regulations for banks like SVB? Republicans, libertarians, and the SVB executives. Who orchestrated the bank run on SVB? Peter Thiel (republican donor) and his friends. Who spent the weekend demanding a government bailout? Uber wealthy right wing donors like David Sacks and Jason Calacanis.
Republicans are just as apt as Dems to want to play this crooked game. I don't see this as partisan, more of a class issue (connected vs not).
Republicans will crow about "the market" to the point of worshiping it, until one of their chief donors gets into hot water Then suddenly we see phrases like "too big to fail" enter the story. Those GOP uberCapitalist start sounding like some pink haired college sophomore at coffee shop wearing a Che Guevara tshirt.
All thanks to Biden and his woke banking policies, now even our banking system is failing just like our infrastructure is failing under Biden. Trains crash every day, but Dems don't care. All they care about is ruining more banks.
I say never miss a chance at blaming Biden and the Libs...for everything wrong in your life (LOL). How about informing yourself better?
From Forbes (very Woke publication) "How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise"
All thanks to Biden and his woke banking policies, now even our banking system is failing just like our infrastructure is failing under Biden. Trains crash every day, but Dems don't care. All they care about is ruining more banks.
I say never miss a chance at blaming Biden and the Libs...for everything wrong in your life (LOL). How about informing yourself better?
From Forbes (very Woke publication) "How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise"
All thanks to Biden and his woke banking policies, now even our banking system is failing just like our infrastructure is failing under Biden. Trains crash every day, but Dems don't care. All they care about is ruining more banks.
I say never miss a chance at blaming Biden and the Libs...for everything wrong in your life (LOL). How about informing yourself better?
From Forbes (very Woke publication) "How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise"
Oh yes, let's read more fake news from more liberal sites. Not.
Americans know the truth about this latest Biden financial debacle/crime. Why isn't the Deep State FBI investigating Biden on this? Too busy trying to bring down the Trump movement which is an existential threat to Deep State.
I posted what needs to be done on another thread about 45 minutes ago.
Congress and Executive Branch need to give bank regulators the authority to be tougher on banks. We (U.S. citizens) need to require banks to maintain significantly more cash in none interesting bearing funds, basically in the equivalent of a checking account.
Banks won't want greater regulation. Banks will say it cuts down on their ability to make money. Some of you maintain at least 3 months of cash in your checking account but I am sure most of you do not. Most of you would be unhappy if you were told to do so. Same thing with banks. Requiring them to keep more cash will mean lower bank profits but it would mean a healthier U.S. banking system.
I posted what needs to be done on another thread about 45 minutes ago.
Congress and Executive Branch need to give bank regulators the authority to be tougher on banks. We (U.S. citizens) need to require banks to maintain significantly more cash in none interesting bearing funds, basically in the equivalent of a checking account.
Banks won't want greater regulation. Banks will say it cuts down on their ability to make money. Some of you maintain at least 3 months of cash in your checking account but I am sure most of you do not. Most of you would be unhappy if you were told to do so. Same thing with banks. Requiring them to keep more cash will mean lower bank profits but it would mean a healthier U.S. banking system.
Which is more left wing than either party is interested in going. People arguing about if this is Biden or Trump--it is either both or neither. Ultimately it is the corporate executives themselves doing this to Americans.
If you want regulations to benefit people more than the bank, you want government to be further left than the democratic party, and I agree with you.
Conservatives should like this solution. Private enterprises going under and private enterprise funding the survival of the banking system.
Except it won't work that way. Private enterprise will go out of business, but the owners of that business will walk away unscathed, and the tax payers (not the market) will pay for it all.
There's a big difference when the people that cause the mess would actually have some liability for the mess they cause, and have to pay for that mess; but they don't and won't.
owners of the failed banks lost their entire business. Gone. Wiped out. Zeroed out. Shares to zero. Nothing. Nada. Stop implying anything otherwise. They caused the mess, they lost their money. A lot of it.
but sure, depositors got their money out. It's a bank...you put money in, you get money out. These peopel weren't taking any risk - they were just keeping their money at a bank.
I posted what needs to be done on another thread about 45 minutes ago.
Congress and Executive Branch need to give bank regulators the authority to be tougher on banks. We (U.S. citizens) need to require banks to maintain significantly more cash in none interesting bearing funds, basically in the equivalent of a checking account.
Banks won't want greater regulation. Banks will say it cuts down on their ability to make money. Some of you maintain at least 3 months of cash in your checking account but I am sure most of you do not. Most of you would be unhappy if you were told to do so. Same thing with banks. Requiring them to keep more cash will mean lower bank profits but it would mean a healthier U.S. banking system.
my understanding is that the Trump admin lessened regulations on smaller banks so they could compete with the big national banks. And this is what we get.
So yes, wise government regulation is needed. The big banks have very tough regulation so they are much less risky than the smaller regionals.
Except it won't work that way. Private enterprise will go out of business, but the owners of that business will walk away unscathed, and the tax payers (not the market) will pay for it all.
There's a big difference when the people that cause the mess would actually have some liability for the mess they cause, and have to pay for that mess; but they don't and won't.
owners of the failed banks lost their entire business. Gone. Wiped out. Zeroed out. Shares to zero. Nothing. Nada. Stop implying anything otherwise. They caused the mess, they lost their money. A lot of it.
but sure, depositors got their money out. It's a bank...you put money in, you get money out. These peopel weren't taking any risk - they were just keeping their money at a bank.
You can be sure that the owners of SVB live in a nicer house, drive a nicer car, and send their kids to nicer schools than anyone else on this thread (unless we have an errant anesthesiologist or Fortune 500 CEO posting).
Yes, they lost their shares. But first of all, they've been raking in the big bucks for years, and unless they did something grossly illegal to a Madoff-like degree, they'll keep most of it. Furthermore, in a few years, they'll get new high-paying jobs. Did you see the NY Post article about how some of their principals were involved in banks that failed in 2008???
Their executives sold at least 4 million dollars worth of stock in the final weeks because they knew it was folding. Giant paychecks, years of bonuses, one final sale and a golden parachute to a new company. They are in the club and they will get another high paying job next month.
owners of the failed banks lost their entire business. Gone. Wiped out. Zeroed out. Shares to zero. Nothing. Nada. Stop implying anything otherwise. They caused the mess, they lost their money. A lot of it.
but sure, depositors got their money out. It's a bank...you put money in, you get money out. These peopel weren't taking any risk - they were just keeping their money at a bank.
You can be sure that the owners of SVB live in a nicer house, drive a nicer car, and send their kids to nicer schools than anyone else on this thread (unless we have an errant anesthesiologist or Fortune 500 CEO posting).
Yes, they lost their shares. But first of all, they've been raking in the big bucks for years, and unless they did something grossly illegal to a Madoff-like degree, they'll keep most of it. Furthermore, in a few years, they'll get new high-paying jobs. Did you see the NY Post article about how some of their principals were involved in banks that failed in 2008???
'owners' is a broad term and indicates anyone with shares in the company. Usually every long-term employee would have some shares. So not everyone who lost money in the shares was rich. But many were, sure.
yes, that's how capitalism works...you take the risk of ownership...you risk losing your capital. they lost it. Did they save enough during the fat years? Maybe. But I'm sure many or most of the owner/workers at that bank were depending on their SVP shares to be a very large part of their retirement. That went to zero.