Anonymous wrote:

These treasonous f#cks were betting and hoping for an economic collapse. They deserve to eat sh#t and die.

The gall that they festoon themselves with the flag of this country.

Anonymous wrote:

This isn't unprecedented. The FDIC protected all deposits, even above the insurance limit, when the Bank of New England failed in 1991.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/07/business/us-is-taking-over-a-group-of-banks-to-head-off-a-run.html

Anonymous wrote:A group chat amongst some millionaires and billionaires and where we are...

The guy who wrote this is an SV multimillionaire WHO ONLY HAS HIS MONEY IN ONE BANK.

But here's the best part - while he's trying to desperately get his money out of SVB, HE BUYS SVB STOCK.

These people are complete morons.

1:30 PM: SVB is a solid bank. I know their CEO, Greg Becker. Great guy. I figure this is a temporary issue caused mainly by people panicking. They'll recover. I buy shares of SVB at what I consider significantly low prices.

Anonymous wrote:After reading this thread, I am even more confused about what is going on with this bank and why it should matter to the average bank account holder.

Peter Thiel found a vulnerability in the post-Lehman banking system. Sudden mass withdrawals can bankrupt even risk averse banks because the safe assets they hold have all lost value as interest rates have risen.

Dow futures jump 300 points

Federal Reserve announce new liquidity program for banks

"To support American businesses and households, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors. This action will bolster the capacity of the banking system to safeguard deposits and ensure the ongoing provision of money and credit to the economy.

The Federal Reserve is prepared to address any liquidity pressures that may arise.

The financing will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.

With approval of the Treasury Secretary, the Department of the Treasury will make available up to $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the BTFP. The Federal Reserve does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm

The doom and gloom people can go back to their holes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 banks collapsed under Trump and no one batted an eye. This is the first one under Biden, and it was totally orchestrated by Peter Thiel, who is basically an enemy of the US.

Few care if small community banks go under as spillovers are very limited.

The combined assets of the banks you speak of were less than $20 billion. SBV has over $200 billion in assets.

I think I saw that 97% of their depositors had over $250,000 which is why those accounts were not FDIC insured.

So I'm supposed to feel bad for people who are much much much wealthier than the average American? Nah.

They were mostly small businesses. Not individuals. Do you even understand the basics here?

The basics are that SVB is not a traditional bank, it is basically a glorified VC that gave below market rates to start up companies and lobbied the feds to reduce the regulatory oversight, and now got caught with their pants down. the small businesses in question took shortcuts, rather than leaving their reserves in a more protected environment.

+1

A group chat amongst some millionaires and billionaires and where we are...

"crippling"

I tell you about crippling

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Head of Risk at the UK subsidiary. She didn’t manage the parent entity’s balance sheet.

Good lord, you people are pushing the dumbest narrative.

Yes--much more concerning is that SVB let its chief risk officer position go unfilled for eight months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 banks collapsed under Trump and no one batted an eye. This is the first one under Biden, and it was totally orchestrated by Peter Thiel, who is basically an enemy of the US.

Few care if small community banks go under as spillovers are very limited.

The combined assets of the banks you speak of were less than $20 billion. SBV has over $200 billion in assets.

I think I saw that 97% of their depositors had over $250,000 which is why those accounts were not FDIC insured.

So I'm supposed to feel bad for people who are much much much wealthier than the average American? Nah.

A large fraction of those accounts are businesses you clown. How do you not understand this?

For example, Patriot Software who handles payroll for millions businesses all over the country used SVB for its accounts. Businesses all over the country could be dramatically affected.

https://www.cantonrep.com/story/business/2023/03/10/silicon-valley-bank-closure-upends-jackson-townships-patriot-software/69995257007/

Patriot Software began fielding complaints around 9 a.m. Friday from customers whose employees hadn't been paid through direct deposit. At that time, Patriot said its bank "has experienced a processing delay," which meant customers may experience a delay with direct deposit. At 11 a.m., Patriot said in a message to a customer that it still expected the issue to be resolved by the end of the day.

You think you're sticking it to wealthy Wall Street types, but in reality the risks are very real for many businesses and common workers who simply won't get paid. But do prattle on.

Patriot Software doesn't handle payroll for "millions of businesses" - more like a few thousand. They handle payroll for less than 0.05% of America's businesses. And again I do not think it is at all reasonable for taxpayers to be left holding the bag every time business takes a risk. We already went through this crap with the bank failure of 2008 and nobody was ever held accountable for their criminal schemes.

If you want to play this "privatize the profits but socialize the risk" crap then businesses are going to have to start paying a lot more in taxes to cover it.

Anonymous wrote:

Head of Risk at the UK subsidiary. She didn’t manage the parent entity’s balance sheet.

Good lord, you people are pushing the dumbest narrative.