SVB failure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like this comparison to the S&L crisis from the 80s, Paul Krugman:

In banking, insuring deposits means that depositors have no reason to concern themselves with how the banks are using their money. This in turn creates an incentive for banks to engage in bad behavior, such as making highly risky but high-yielding loans. If the loans pay off, the bank makes a lot of money; if they don’t, the owners just walk away. Heads, they win; tails, the taxpayers lose.

This isn’t a hypothetical case; it’s pretty much what happened during the S.&L. crisis of the 1980s, when savings and loan associations, especially but not only in Texas, effectively gambled on a huge scale with other people’s money. When the bets went bad, taxpayers had to compensate depositors, with the total cost amounting to as much as $124 billion — which, as an equivalent share of gross domestic product, would be something like $500 billion today.

The thing is, it’s not news that guaranteeing depositors creates moral hazard. That moral hazard is one of the reasons banks are regulated….

The alternative is everyone flocking to a bank that they know is too big for the government to ever let fail. It's really hard for the average account holder to dive into a bank's financials, it's much easier to go to a too big to fail institution. If I'm worried about the FDIC maybe declining to step in, I avoid local and regional banks because they can be allowed to fail. Wells Fargo or Bank of America cannot be allowed to fail, so no matter how stupid or reckless management is, my deposit is probably safe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell me again how this was not a bailout for the wealthy? This bank was subsidizing loans for the rich as a recruitment tool. Where were these loans for the poor?

“Silicon Valley Bank was also deeply entangled in the personal finances of high net worth tech executives. It offered low-interest loans to investors and start-up founders who banked with it, so they were able to secure such loans — which traditional banks declined — for multimillion dollar homes, said three people who banked with Silicon Valley Bank.

Austin Petersmith, an investor and vice president of growth at Vendr, a software subscription company, tweeted his thanks last week to Silicon Valley Bank for giving him a mortgage for his home.

“Without SVB, my family literally wouldn’t be sitting in this home today,” he wrote, adding that 15 banks and lenders had rejected him for a mortgage while Silicon Valley Bank “approved us in less than a week.” He did not respond to a request for comment.

One start-up founder, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not comfortable revealing his personal finances, said Silicon Valley Bank gave him a $4 million loan for his San Francisco home with an interest rate of 2.2 percent, while other banks were offering rates of 3 percent and higher.”

The irony is that the same people that they did these favors for are the ones that killed it.

But today is about Credit Suisse. Global banker to the corrupt.

Shut up fool

Sorry not sorry. I have no sympathy for the people who took part in this bank run.

"SVB was great. They treated us like fanily. When I heard that they would go bust if we all pulled our money..." Gtfo

As for Credit Suisse, they get even less sympathy. 9.8% owned by the Saudis.

[Anonymous]

But in small banks FDIC is insuring deposits. So we should be OK as long as the account has less than 250K, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell me again how this was not a bailout for the wealthy? This bank was subsidizing loans for the rich as a recruitment tool. Where were these loans for the poor?

“Silicon Valley Bank was also deeply entangled in the personal finances of high net worth tech executives. It offered low-interest loans to investors and start-up founders who banked with it, so they were able to secure such loans — which traditional banks declined — for multimillion dollar homes, said three people who banked with Silicon Valley Bank.

Austin Petersmith, an investor and vice president of growth at Vendr, a software subscription company, tweeted his thanks last week to Silicon Valley Bank for giving him a mortgage for his home.

“Without SVB, my family literally wouldn’t be sitting in this home today,” he wrote, adding that 15 banks and lenders had rejected him for a mortgage while Silicon Valley Bank “approved us in less than a week.” He did not respond to a request for comment.

One start-up founder, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not comfortable revealing his personal finances, said Silicon Valley Bank gave him a $4 million loan for his San Francisco home with an interest rate of 2.2 percent, while other banks were offering rates of 3 percent and higher.”

The irony is that the same people that they did these favors for are the ones that killed it.

But today is about Credit Suisse. Global banker to the corrupt.

Shut up fool

Sorry not sorry. I have no sympathy for the people who took part in this bank run.

"SVB was great. They treated us like fanily. When I heard that they would go bust if we all pulled our money..." Gtfo

As for Credit Suisse, they get even less sympathy. 9.8% owned by the Saudis.

Credit Suisse, the favored bank of dictators, mafiosos, tax cheats, and smugglers of all types. The perfect crowd for a bailout, good luck to Switzerland on dealing with this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But in small banks FDIC is insuring deposits. So we should be OK as long as the account has less than 250K, right?

US deposits are safe. The Fed has ensured that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And guess who is the new SVB ceo? The former ceo from Fannie Mae lol you can’t make this shit up

I would like to see some these guys in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell me again how this was not a bailout for the wealthy? This bank was subsidizing loans for the rich as a recruitment tool. Where were these loans for the poor?

“Silicon Valley Bank was also deeply entangled in the personal finances of high net worth tech executives. It offered low-interest loans to investors and start-up founders who banked with it, so they were able to secure such loans — which traditional banks declined — for multimillion dollar homes, said three people who banked with Silicon Valley Bank.

Austin Petersmith, an investor and vice president of growth at Vendr, a software subscription company, tweeted his thanks last week to Silicon Valley Bank for giving him a mortgage for his home.

“Without SVB, my family literally wouldn’t be sitting in this home today,” he wrote, adding that 15 banks and lenders had rejected him for a mortgage while Silicon Valley Bank “approved us in less than a week.” He did not respond to a request for comment.

One start-up founder, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not comfortable revealing his personal finances, said Silicon Valley Bank gave him a $4 million loan for his San Francisco home with an interest rate of 2.2 percent, while other banks were offering rates of 3 percent and higher.”

How could this be legal, it’s basically a in-kind bribe to company executives so that their companies bank with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess who is the new SVB ceo? The former ceo from Fannie Mae lol you can’t make this shit up

I would like to see some these guys in jail.

Why ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess who is the new SVB ceo? The former ceo from Fannie Mae lol you can’t make this shit up

I would like to see some these guys in jail.

I don't know who this guys is, but a quick google search shows he took over at Fannie Mae after the recession. I don't see anything particularly shady about his past and he seems to have helped FM recover.
What's the problem with him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell me again how this was not a bailout for the wealthy? This bank was subsidizing loans for the rich as a recruitment tool. Where were these loans for the poor?

“Silicon Valley Bank was also deeply entangled in the personal finances of high net worth tech executives. It offered low-interest loans to investors and start-up founders who banked with it, so they were able to secure such loans — which traditional banks declined — for multimillion dollar homes, said three people who banked with Silicon Valley Bank.

Austin Petersmith, an investor and vice president of growth at Vendr, a software subscription company, tweeted his thanks last week to Silicon Valley Bank for giving him a mortgage for his home.

“Without SVB, my family literally wouldn’t be sitting in this home today,” he wrote, adding that 15 banks and lenders had rejected him for a mortgage while Silicon Valley Bank “approved us in less than a week.” He did not respond to a request for comment.

One start-up founder, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not comfortable revealing his personal finances, said Silicon Valley Bank gave him a $4 million loan for his San Francisco home with an interest rate of 2.2 percent, while other banks were offering rates of 3 percent and higher.”

How could this be legal, it’s basically a in-kind bribe to company executives so that their companies bank with them.

Any bank with private banking services offers the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like this comparison to the S&L crisis from the 80s, Paul Krugman:

In banking, insuring deposits means that depositors have no reason to concern themselves with how the banks are using their money. This in turn creates an incentive for banks to engage in bad behavior, such as making highly risky but high-yielding loans. If the loans pay off, the bank makes a lot of money; if they don’t, the owners just walk away. Heads, they win; tails, the taxpayers lose.

This isn’t a hypothetical case; it’s pretty much what happened during the S.&L. crisis of the 1980s, when savings and loan associations, especially but not only in Texas, effectively gambled on a huge scale with other people’s money. When the bets went bad, taxpayers had to compensate depositors, with the total cost amounting to as much as $124 billion — which, as an equivalent share of gross domestic product, would be something like $500 billion today.

The thing is, it’s not news that guaranteeing depositors creates moral hazard. That moral hazard is one of the reasons banks are regulated….

The alternative is everyone flocking to a bank that they know is too big for the government to ever let fail. It's really hard for the average account holder to dive into a bank's financials, it's much easier to go to a too big to fail institution. If I'm worried about the FDIC maybe declining to step in, I avoid local and regional banks because they can be allowed to fail. Wells Fargo or Bank of America cannot be allowed to fail, so no matter how stupid or reckless management is, my deposit is probably safe

With all due respect to Krugman, his remarks are not particularly insightful. Ever since deposit insurance was instituted in the thirties, it has been well understood that this government safety net created moral hazard and required far more scrutiny of banks' activities to safeguard the funds of taxpayers that are at risk once you have such a safety net.

This is why banks are so heavily regulated and subject to federal supervision (and not just state supervision).

The dynamic at S and Ls was a bit different. Their supervisory agency was subject to extreme government capture. Also, in many cases shareholders who put up most of the money did not have voting power commensurate with their investment. A few investors--often the same people as management--had small investments but controlled the votes. Since they had relatively little at stake, they could take big bets on strategy. If they succeeded they would get a lot, if they failed they did not have much to lose. So management had very skewed incentives.

[Anonymous]

As First Republic was quickly going down in the wake SVB and Signature, the largest banks today came up with their own bailout plan by putting in $30 billion of uninsured deposits.

https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/press-r...-first-republic-bank

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As First Republic was quickly going down in the wake SVB and Signature, the largest banks today came up with their own bailout plan by putting in $30 billion of uninsured deposits.

https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/press-r...-first-republic-bank

Genius. They look good and also know if it goes south, First Rep depositors will probably be bailed out too.

What kind of rate is 1st giving them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As First Republic was quickly going down in the wake SVB and Signature, the largest banks today came up with their own bailout plan by putting in $30 billion of uninsured deposits.

https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/press-r...-first-republic-bank

Genius. They look good and also know if it goes south, First Rep depositors will probably be bailed out too.

What kind of rate is 1st giving them?

Don't know rate but it is genius. They are recycling the billions of deposits that fled to them when SVB was going down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As First Republic was quickly going down in the wake SVB and Signature, the largest banks today came up with their own bailout plan by putting in $30 billion of uninsured deposits.

https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/press-r...-first-republic-bank

Genius. They look good and also know if it goes south, First Rep depositors will probably be bailed out too.

What kind of rate is 1st giving them?

Don't know rate but it is genius. They are recycling the billions of deposits that fled to them when SVB was going down.

And looks like it won’t save 1RB