racer254 Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, akvanden said: Yup, bank runs aren’t political. So by stepping in to prevent a bank run in this case it wasn’t political. 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? Let them fail. The only people that would be really hurt are the ones with over 250k in that bank. Cover the 100k and the hell with the rest. Screw them. You and many others here are always complaining about the wealthy, but here you are wanting to bail those same "wealthy" out. Let them fail. Nothing says you hate the rich like bailing them out every time they make bad decisions. Edited March 16, 2023 by racer254 1 1 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 6 minutes ago, akvanden said: Yup, bank runs aren’t political. So by stepping in to prevent a bank run in this case it wasn’t political. 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? Again bank runs aren't who the govt protects is. No I didn't but its obtuse to say that means I WANTED a run on the banks....what evidence did they have that this would have spiraled out of control? What evidence do you have? We close the stock market when it drops so much so fast. I don't see a problem with some formula doing the same for banks on withdrawals other than say people/companies paying bills. Its short sighted to think the only resolution is going above and beyond written law and just broadly covering what ends up being better off American's and companies. I'm saying that as one of them so keep talking shit what you think I wanted. I'll say this again....90% of the depositors in SVB were under the $250K threshold....this wasn't protecting the ave Joe in the slightest. This was protecting people who should have know better than to keep that much in a single bank. And who in their right mind other than business accounts keeps over $250K in a single bank account when paid interest hasn't kept up with borrowed interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 17 minutes ago, Highmark said: Again bank runs aren't who the govt protects is. I'll say this again....90% of the depositors in SVB were under the $250K threshold....this wasn't protecting the ave Joe in the slightest. This was protecting people who should have know better than to keep that much in a single bank. And who in their right mind other than business accounts keeps over $250K in a single bank account when paid interest hasn't kept up with borrowed interest. Ah yes, these are the wealthy that democrats keep complaining about yet, these same people agree to bail them out at every step. Bail them out......I don't think so. 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 (edited) 8 minutes ago, racer254 said: Ah yes, these are the wealthy that democrats keep complaining about yet, these same people agree to bail them out at every step. Bail them out......I don't think so. And fee's for everyone now just went up. Laughable they say this isn't a bailout by the taxpayers. Its nothing but because they banks just pass them on to the customers. Edited March 16, 2023 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franks pond Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 2 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 2 minutes ago, franks pond said: Run away fast from any "woke" financial institutions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Run away fast from any "woke" financial institutions. Hell, WHY? Look they just got bailed out, no one lost anything. Everyone else had to cover the stupidity. 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 2 minutes ago, racer254 said: Hell, WHY? Look they just got bailed out, no one lost anything. Everyone else had to cover the stupidity. Because even if the admin is saying they will cover the deposits how long will it take. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 Sorry but you ain't the club suckers. Nothing to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Sorry but you ain't the club suckers. Nothing to see. Sure was a lot of people getting out before the government stepped in, someone must have known. 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 (edited) Will past depositors (above the $250K threshold) of bank failures start filing lawsuits? I sure would consider it. Not sure how many or what the SoL is. https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ Edited March 16, 2023 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 36 minutes ago, racer254 said: Let them fail. The only people that would be really hurt are the ones with over 250k in that bank. Cover the 100k and the hell with the rest. Screw them. You and many others here are always complaining about the wealthy, but here you are wanting to bail those same "wealthy" out. Let them fail. Nothing says you hate the rich like bailing them out every time they make bad decisions. It would wreak havoc in the financial system thus affecting markets and the overall economy. Everyone loses, not just those in that particular bank with over 250k. And I’ve never complained about people with wealth. 34 minutes ago, Highmark said: Again bank runs aren't who the govt protects is. No I didn't but its obtuse to say that means I WANTED a run on the banks....what evidence did they have that this would have spiraled out of control? What evidence do you have? We close the stock market when it drops so much so fast. I don't see a problem with some formula doing the same for banks on withdrawals other than say people/companies paying bills. Its short sighted to think the only resolution is going above and beyond written law and just broadly covering what ends up being better off American's and companies. I'm saying that as one of them so keep talking shit what you think I wanted. I'll say this again....90% of the depositors in SVB were under the $250K threshold....this wasn't protecting the ave Joe in the slightest. This was protecting people who should have know better than to keep that much in a single bank. And who in their right mind other than business accounts keeps over $250K in a single bank account when paid interest hasn't kept up with borrowed interest. it absolutely is what they’re trying to stop. Collapsing banks do not build confidence and would have huge impacts to the market and overall economy. This protects much more than just a few with over $250k in their account. Clearly you’re ok with the possibly of a bank run when taking the do nothing approach. Clearly you think the prospect of letting the depositors fend for themselves is still the right thing to do, even if it causes a run on other banks, impacts markets, etc. As for evidence look no further than other banks with very similar balance sheets holding bonds that are worth way more on paper than in the open market. Look no further than the same thing that happened to SVB then happen to Signature bank. Look at all the stock prices for the regional banks over the fear of the same thing happening to them. There is concern everywhere at the moment, even in conservative banks. 38 minutes ago, Highmark said: And fee's for everyone now just went up. Laughable they say this isn't a bailout by the taxpayers. No one’s fees have gone up. The FDIC hasn’t paid anything out. SVB supposedly has enough assets to cover deposits. The only thing the FDIC has done was to step and in guarantee deposits to stop the run. 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 (edited) 15 minutes ago, akvanden said: It would wreak havoc in the financial system thus affecting markets and the overall economy. Everyone loses, not just those in that particular bank with over 250k. And I’ve never complained about people with wealth. it absolutely is what they’re trying to stop. Collapsing banks do not build confidence and would have huge impacts to the market and overall economy. This protects much more than just a few with over $250k in their account. Clearly you’re ok with the possibly of a bank run when taking the do nothing approach. Clearly you think the prospect of letting the depositors fend for themselves is still the right thing to do, even if it causes a run on other banks, impacts markets, etc. As for evidence look no further than other banks with very similar balance sheets holding bonds that are worth way more on paper than in the open market. Look no further than the same thing that happened to SVB then happen to Signature bank. Look at all the stock prices for the regional banks over the fear of the same thing happening to them. There is concern everywhere at the moment, even in conservative banks. No one’s fees have gone up. The FDIC hasn’t paid anything out. SVB supposedly has enough assets to cover deposits. The only thing the FDIC has done was to step and in guarantee deposits to stop the run. Like hitting my head up against the wall so I'll repeat myself one more time. We close the stock market when it drops so much so fast. I don't see a problem with some formula doing the same for banks on withdrawals other than say people/companies paying bills. Its short sighted to think the only resolution is going above and beyond written law and just broadly covering what ends up being better off American's and companies. Link to the claim SVB has the assets to cover their deposits? If this was the case why wasn't that stated from the get to to ease any panic? Another point you are missing is just because the admin is saying they will cover above FDIC doesn't mean they can or will. I'm sure a significant portion of American's see this as a promise they can't guarantee and simply propaganda and yet no run on the banks. Edited March 16, 2023 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 2 hours ago, Mainecat said: UPS took 258 million in PPP reward stupidity taxpayer dollars. I don't suppose you will give us the name of good ol brother in law's company so we can do a quick look see, will ya? That's convenient. Lastly, I could care less.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 1 hour ago, racer254 said: Sure was a lot of people getting out before the government stepped in, someone must have known. Many knew. It's likely "insider trading" and should be prosecuted. No bank has the deposits it lends out. We have a fractional system and it's bullshit. 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 (edited) Actually I read it wrong....90% of the depositors were above the FDIC limit....that makes even more sense and proof who they were helping. Rich liberal friends. Edited March 16, 2023 by Highmark 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: We close the stock market when it drops so much so fast. I don't see a problem with some formula doing the same for banks on withdrawals other than say people/companies paying bills. Its short sighted to think the only resolution is going above and beyond written law and just broadly covering what ends up being better off American's and companies. I’m glad you have ideas on other possible solutions. Until they can be enacted into law, there are only so many options to stop runs. 1) do nothing and hope a domino effect doesn’t take place even though there are many banks with similar balance sheets - even ‘conservative’ ones! 2) place guarantees so the runs stop. 1 hour ago, Highmark said: Link to the claim SVB has the assets to cover their deposits? If this was the case why wasn't that stated from the get to to ease any panic? “The decision addressed concerns around the fate of uninsured funds held at the Santa Clara, California-based bank — the country’s 16th largest — which had $209 billion in assets and more than $175 billion in deposits.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna74570 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Another point you are missing is just because the admin is saying they will cover above FDIC doesn't mean they can or will. I'm sure a significant portion of American's see this as a promise they can't guarantee and simply propaganda and yet no run on the banks No, don’t really think that’s a point I’m missing, nor do I think that’s a prevalent thought. But then again, I don’t think any large part of the public has any clue how the banking system works. Don’t hit your head on that wall too hard. 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 (edited) 29 minutes ago, akvanden said: I’m glad you have ideas on other possible solutions. Until they can be enacted into law, there are only so many options to stop runs. 1) do nothing and hope a domino effect doesn’t take place even though there are many banks with similar balance sheets - even ‘conservative’ ones! 2) place guarantees so the runs stop. “The decision addressed concerns around the fate of uninsured funds held at the Santa Clara, California-based bank — the country’s 16th largest — which had $209 billion in assets and more than $175 billion in deposits.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna74570 No, don’t really think that’s a point I’m missing, nor do I think that’s a prevalent thought. But then again, I don’t think any large part of the public has any clue how the banking system works. Don’t hit your head on that wall too hard. Enacted into law ....was what they did enacted into law? Since it appears they can do anything they want why not infuse cash until they can liquidate all the assets then whatever that amount is above or below those assets book value that is what is left to distribute to the depositors....everyone gets up to 250k then the amount left goes to those above. Costs the fdic nothing and there might even be some left over to pay the stockholders a fraction. Of course creditors would come in there as well. Kind of like a bankruptcy proceeding where the govt only is helping keep the bank operational while the assets are liquidated. Edited March 16, 2023 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 12 minutes ago, Highmark said: Enacted into law ....was what they did enacted into law? oh ohhh, you’re getting the giggles again…. Law, FDIC rule, call it what you want. If they want to put an auto stop in place that applies to every FDIC participating bank they would have to certainly put guidelines around it. All wonderful ideas they could implement at some point in the future. Doesn’t help/apply to the current situation though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 Dude saw it in January... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 17, 2023 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, akvanden said: oh ohhh, you’re getting the giggles again…. Law, FDIC rule, call it what you want. If they want to put an auto stop in place that applies to every FDIC participating bank they would have to certainly put guidelines around it. All wonderful ideas they could implement at some point in the future. Doesn’t help/apply to the current situation though. Yes I'm laughing at your comment "enacted into law" because the loophole they used for this is an obscure one stating they can use any method that has the least financial impact on the FDIC. I don't see their method as that. Edited March 17, 2023 by Highmark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 One more time….. 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.