ArcticCrusher Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 1 hour ago, Anler said: Govt is doing whatever their donors pay them to do at our expense. There are no ethics. period. It should be pretty obvious by now. Sheep are blind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 hours ago, Highmark said: You're dismissing human greed and the pressure to deliver for the stockholders. Most leadership had some equity stake in previous institutions that failed because of it. No need to look any further than 2008 financial crisis. No, I specifically called that out. Sure, they want to fly as close to the sun as possible, but in no way does what happened to SVB help equity holders of the firm. So when you say "Now every bank in the country is saying oh well the govt will just bail us out" it's very dismissive to the fact that they have zero incentive to want that to happen - just the opposite. 2 hours ago, DriftBusta said: Yeah no big deal, squander 100 billion and the FDIC will save your ass. What happened to the 250,000 limit? Well it certainly is a big deal, no one is arguing otherwise. But from what I've read SVB has enough assets to cover deposits. The only reason they stepped in to guarantee more was to stop the outflow so the FDIC didn't have to step in with their own funds. Stop the run, stop the ripple effect into other banks. 1 hour ago, Snake said: IMAGINE BIDEN STANDING NEXT TO AN ELEPHANT: He’s pointing at it and insisting “that is NOT an elephant.” Would you believe him? Joseph Simonson and Thaleigha Rampersad of the Washington Free Beacon report that almost nobody is believing Biden when he claims ‘that is NOT a bailout” regarding SVB and Signature Bank. Not even The Washington Post, New York Times, Vox or NPR are buying Biden’s insistence that he’s not using federal tax dollars to bailout two huge banks that just happen to number among their investors, board members and depositors hordes of Democratic donors. You ain’t flyin’ when Post/Times/Vox/NPR ain’t buy-in’ is the bottom line here. https://instapundit.com/574511/#disqus_thread You don't have to believe him to know how the FDIC works. Bank runs don't care if you're a democrat or republican. Ripple effects into other banks don't care either. Stop making it political. You need to stop the ripple effect, period. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, akvanden said: You need to stop the ripple effect, period. Some time to stop the madness things need to fail. In California and New York anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Snake said: Some time to stop the madness things need to fail. In California and New York anyway... Controlled fails like SVB (and it did fail, even if depositors are made whole, and leadership will be held accountable, investors lost billions, etc), sure. What we don’t need or want is uncontrolled fails that set off a domino effect that will cause who knows what harm. Edited March 15, 2023 by akvanden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polaris7541 Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 looking out the window ,and ducking cause s555t flying around in here ,, now that I have your attention ,, think out side the box ,, so biden crashes the banking system , and the gubarment hoards in all our cash , then we ALL find we have to rely on what blow hole joe says we get ,, its all about control, its what hes doing with a smile on his face , and to top it off hes backing the bank , he needs to go 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polaris7541 Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 and guess what WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO think about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 17 minutes ago, akvanden said: No, I specifically called that out. Sure, they want to fly as close to the sun as possible, but in no way does what happened to SVB help equity holders of the firm. So when you say "Now every bank in the country is saying oh well the govt will just bail us out" it's very dismissive to the fact that they have zero incentive to want that to happen - just the opposite. Well it certainly is a big deal, no one is arguing otherwise. But from what I've read SVB has enough assets to cover deposits. The only reason they stepped in to guarantee more was to stop the outflow so the FDIC didn't have to step in with their own funds. Stop the run, stop the ripple effect into other banks. You don't have to believe him to know how the FDIC works. Bank runs don't care if you're a democrat or republican. Ripple effects into other banks don't care either. Stop making it political. You need to stop the ripple effect, period. And if you let them fail now and back in 08 banks would not be running on the edge not even close . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 6 minutes ago, akvanden said: Controlled fails like SVB (and it did fail, even if depositors are made whole, and leadership will be held accountable, investors lost billions, etc), sure. What we don’t need or want is uncontrolled fails that set off a domino effect that will cause who knows what harm. Leadership will be held accountable lmfao what fucking planet are you living on ? A little dog and pony show with a few soft balls in fr of congress at worst . Then a new 7 figure job offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Ez ryder said: Leadership will be held accountable lmfao what fucking planet are you living on ? A little dog and pony show with a few soft balls in fr of congress at worst . Then a new 7 figure job offer They’re already being sued, not to mention their equity that was probably worth tens of millions went to zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 15, 2023 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 15, 2023 (edited) 41 minutes ago, akvanden said: No, I specifically called that out. Sure, they want to fly as close to the sun as possible, but in no way does what happened to SVB help equity holders of the firm. So when you say "Now every bank in the country is saying oh well the govt will just bail us out" it's very dismissive to the fact that they have zero incentive to want that to happen - just the opposite. My statement may have overshot it but having the govt as a bailout will add risk to the industry. There is simply no way it could not. SVB depositors should not have been made whole over FDIC coverage. Over 90% of them were less than $250K. It was a bailout to wealthy business' and individuals who poorly managed their wealth. Nothing more...nothing less. Edited March 15, 2023 by Highmark 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 7 minutes ago, Highmark said: My statement may have overshot it but having the govt as a bailout will add risk to the industry. There is simply no way it could not. SVB depositors should not have been made whole over FDIC coverage. Then why would anyone - personal or business - want to have more than 250k in a bank account? 99% of depositors do NOT have the financial acumen to know if their banking institution is financially sound. The guarantees need to be there for the depositors, not for the equity owners and leadership. Small business and peoples life savings shouldn’t be penalized and completely wiped out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 3 minutes ago, akvanden said: Then why would anyone - personal or business - want to have more than 250k in a bank account? 99% of depositors do NOT have the financial acumen to know if their banking institution is financially sound. The guarantees need to be there for the depositors, not for the equity owners and leadership. Small business and peoples life savings shouldn’t be penalized and completely wiped out. When I was a young fella and I went to the bank, I always saw the sign saying deposits insured up (at the time) $100,000. Even then I had enough of a brain to say "who in their right mind would have $500,000 in a bank account?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 15, 2023 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, akvanden said: Then why would anyone - personal or business - want to have more than 250k in a bank account? 99% of depositors do NOT have the financial acumen to know if their banking institution is financially sound. The guarantees need to be there for the depositors, not for the equity owners and leadership. Small business and peoples life savings shouldn’t be penalized and completely wiped out. Then the FDIC rules should have been written that way. I'm not for arbitrarily changing the rules in the middle of the game especially when its fairly obvious this was to help people/companies likely fitting the lefts political values. I would have disagreed with this if Trump had done it to a bank in Texas and Florida. That said $250K limit has been around for a long time and some adjustment should have been done long ago.....by congress. What would the US govt do if this run on 2 banks turned into 1000 and included some of the big boys? In the end customers whose banks are managed properly end up paying for the ones that are not thru increased fee's. It's bullshit. How about this idea where the larger accounts pay more above the $250K threshold? Want your account protected up to $1 million then people in that category pay for the insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 43 minutes ago, Snake said: When I was a young fella and I went to the bank, I always saw the sign saying deposits insured up (at the time) $100,000. Even then I had enough of a brain to say "who in their right mind would have $500,000 in a bank account?" smart $ never puts all the eggs in one basket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: smart $ never puts all the eggs in one basket Leave it to the US to reward stupidity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 41 minutes ago, Snake said: When I was a young fella and I went to the bank, I always saw the sign saying deposits insured up (at the time) $100,000. Even then I had enough of a brain to say "who in their right mind would have $500,000 in a bank account?" Lots of businesses with cash flow. 29 minutes ago, Highmark said: Then the FDIC rules should have been written that way. Fair enough. 29 minutes ago, Highmark said: I'm not for arbitrarily changing the rules in the middle of the game especially when its fairly obvious this was to help people/companies likely fitting the lefts political values. I would have disagreed with this if Trump had done it to a bank in Texas and Florida. Bank runs aren't political. No one wants a domino effect regardless if it started in a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' bank. 30 minutes ago, Highmark said: What would the US govt do if this run on 2 banks turned into 1000 and included some of the big boys? No one wants to find out! Other than you, snake, and maybe a few others. That's the whole reason they're guaranteeing the deposits so they can stop two banks from turning into more. 33 minutes ago, Highmark said: How about this idea where the larger accounts pay more above the $250K threshold? Want your account protected up to $1 million then people in that category pay for the insurance. I'm sure that could be proposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 1 minute ago, akvanden said: No one wants to find out! Other than you, snake, and maybe a few others. That's the whole reason they're guaranteeing the deposits so they can stop two banks from turning into more. California Governor Gavin Newsom lobbied the White House and Treasury on the bailout of Silicon Valley Bank, without disclosing that his private wineries had reportedly been the bank's clients & he may have even had a personal account at the bank, per the Intercept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Snake said: Leave it to the US to reward stupidity. Correct Watch the Frontline special, you'll get angry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Snake said: California Governor Gavin Newsom lobbied the White House and Treasury on the bailout of Silicon Valley Bank, without disclosing that his private wineries had reportedly been the bank's clients & he may have even had a personal account at the bank, per the Intercept now let's not go and leave Kevin McCarthy out of this too... https://theintercept.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-used-former-mccarthy-staffers-to-weaken-regulations-lobby-fdic/ Other Silicon Valley Bank lobbyists worked for political figures across both parties, including former President Bill Clinton; former Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wy.; former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn.; former Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.; and former Rep. Jay Inslee, now governor of Washington state. Edited March 15, 2023 by Crnr2Crnr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 https://fortune.com/2023/03/10/silicon-valley-bank-failure-jeremy-grantham-warns-overpriced-bubbles/amp/ Grantham has been waving red flags since 2020... and the band played on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 6 hours ago, akvanden said: They’re already being sued, not to mention their equity that was probably worth tens of millions went to zero. Watch every executive will walk with there head hung low act and on to the next 7 figure job . They got there's guerntee it they always do . Just like last time . It a fucking thing will happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member ViperGTS/Z1 Posted March 16, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 16, 2023 9 hours ago, Snake said: Some time to stop the madness things need to fail. In California and New York anyway... The guy from Shark Tank had a big account at SVB...way over 250k and he even said it was a mistake for Biden to do this bailout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 16, 2023 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 16, 2023 20 hours ago, akvanden said: Lots of businesses with cash flow. Fair enough. Bank runs aren't political. No one wants a domino effect regardless if it started in a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' bank. No one wants to find out! Other than you, snake, and maybe a few others. That's the whole reason they're guaranteeing the deposits so they can stop two banks from turning into more. I'm sure that could be proposed. Bank runs aren't political but which banks the govt protects can be. You're foolish to think any other way from either side. Where did I say I want a run on banks? Stupid assumption. If over the upcoming weeks many more banks have financial difficulties the govt is making promises that contributed to this whole mess in the first place. Causing inflation. Did you see my other post where banks are holding $1.24 trillion in US treasuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Highmark said: Bank runs aren't political but which banks the govt protects can be. You're foolish to think any other way from either side. Yup, bank runs aren’t political. So by stepping in to prevent a bank run in this case it wasn’t political. 1 hour ago, Highmark said: Where did I say I want a run on banks? Stupid assumption. You didn’t want them to step in and guarantee deposits. What did you think was going to happen?!?? Just a hope and a prayer SVB and signature bank didn’t cause a domino effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 22 hours ago, Snake said: Leave it to the US to reward stupidity. UPS took 258 million in PPP reward stupidity taxpayer dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.