Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UK authorities are scrambling.

https://www.ft.com/content/258d0732-d37b-49d6-8de8-b230a6568965

Likely behind a paywall for most. Some snippets:


UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt was on Saturday locked in talks over how to stop the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank from dealing a heavy blow to Britain’s tech sector.

More than 200 UK-based tech company executives have urged Downing Street to step in, warning that many companies faced an “existential threat” because they banked with the UK arm of SVB.

One London-based venture capitalist said: “There is growing confidence that the UK government will step in with liquidity measures on Monday.”

The Bank of England moved to put the UK arm of SVB into insolvency late on Friday following the shutdown earlier in the day of the bank’s US entity, but said it had “a limited presence in the UK and no critical functions supporting the financial system”.

On Saturday around 210 start-up founders and leaders signed an open letter to Hunt, warning that “the majority of us as tech founders are running numbers to see if we are potentially technically insolvent”.

This is why I’m laughing at all the “this is not a big deal” / “it’s just some small bank in California” takes. This collapse will have an impact worldwide for months, potentially even years to come.

Yes. The people who think this is “just California” seem ignorant.

It will have an impact on tech companies who should have been smarter and in most cases serve no important societal purpose. In the US we have resolution procedures to unwind failed banks and fairly distribute assets. There is no guarantee for uninsured deposits. I assume UK has a similar structure. There’s zero reason to treat the tech companies any differently from what the law already prescribes. Tough luck.

Bad take. It’s going to hit nearly everyone’s retirement accounts, for a start.

Can someone explain to me why this is a rational argument for the continuation of allowing these institutions to get in these precarious situations to begin with and then we use taxpayer money or government money to essentially bail them out or stop the bleeding and then they know that they can do these risky things again over and over and over again I mean it's a pattern of behavior at this point.
And it doesn't seem like most Americans really care that much about it as long as they're not losing from their retirement correct like it's not a they are seen it taken from them directly.

Bailing out TBTF in 08 was a mistake but it was 15 yrs ago, what's done is done. I actually feel like a lot of millennials are still pissed about what happened at that time but maybe it's just my circle. Anyway, if they don't now bailout the regionals, assets will ironically flee to the TBTF banks, making them even more TBTF and the regional banks will go under. This is in nobody's best interest. Pick your poison I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UK authorities are scrambling.

https://www.ft.com/content/258d0732-d37b-49d6-8de8-b230a6568965

Likely behind a paywall for most. Some snippets:


UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt was on Saturday locked in talks over how to stop the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank from dealing a heavy blow to Britain’s tech sector.

More than 200 UK-based tech company executives have urged Downing Street to step in, warning that many companies faced an “existential threat” because they banked with the UK arm of SVB.

One London-based venture capitalist said: “There is growing confidence that the UK government will step in with liquidity measures on Monday.”

The Bank of England moved to put the UK arm of SVB into insolvency late on Friday following the shutdown earlier in the day of the bank’s US entity, but said it had “a limited presence in the UK and no critical functions supporting the financial system”.

On Saturday around 210 start-up founders and leaders signed an open letter to Hunt, warning that “the majority of us as tech founders are running numbers to see if we are potentially technically insolvent”.

This is why I’m laughing at all the “this is not a big deal” / “it’s just some small bank in California” takes. This collapse will have an impact worldwide for months, potentially even years to come.

Yes. The people who think this is “just California” seem ignorant.

It will have an impact on tech companies who should have been smarter and in most cases serve no important societal purpose. In the US we have resolution procedures to unwind failed banks and fairly distribute assets. There is no guarantee for uninsured deposits. I assume UK has a similar structure. There’s zero reason to treat the tech companies any differently from what the law already prescribes. Tough luck.

Bad take. It’s going to hit nearly everyone’s retirement accounts, for a start.

Can someone explain to me why this is a rational argument for the continuation of allowing these institutions to get in these precarious situations to begin with and then we use taxpayer money or government money to essentially bail them out or stop the bleeding and then they know that they can do these risky things again over and over and over again I mean it's a pattern of behavior at this point.
And it doesn't seem like most Americans really care that much about it as long as they're not losing from their retirement correct like it's not a they are seen it taken from them directly.

Bailing out TBTF in 08 was a mistake but it was 15 yrs ago, what's done is done. I actually feel like a lot of millennials are still pissed about what happened at that time but maybe it's just my circle. Anyway, if they don't now bailout the regionals, assets will ironically flee to the TBTF banks, making them even more TBTF and the regional banks will go under. This is in nobody's best interest. Pick your poison I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UK authorities are scrambling.

https://www.ft.com/content/258d0732-d37b-49d6-8de8-b230a6568965

Likely behind a paywall for most. Some snippets:


UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt was on Saturday locked in talks over how to stop the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank from dealing a heavy blow to Britain’s tech sector.

More than 200 UK-based tech company executives have urged Downing Street to step in, warning that many companies faced an “existential threat” because they banked with the UK arm of SVB.

One London-based venture capitalist said: “There is growing confidence that the UK government will step in with liquidity measures on Monday.”

The Bank of England moved to put the UK arm of SVB into insolvency late on Friday following the shutdown earlier in the day of the bank’s US entity, but said it had “a limited presence in the UK and no critical functions supporting the financial system”.

On Saturday around 210 start-up founders and leaders signed an open letter to Hunt, warning that “the majority of us as tech founders are running numbers to see if we are potentially technically insolvent”.

This is why I’m laughing at all the “this is not a big deal” / “it’s just some small bank in California” takes. This collapse will have an impact worldwide for months, potentially even years to come.

Yes. The people who think this is “just California” seem ignorant.

It will have an impact on tech companies who should have been smarter and in most cases serve no important societal purpose. In the US we have resolution procedures to unwind failed banks and fairly distribute assets. There is no guarantee for uninsured deposits. I assume UK has a similar structure. There’s zero reason to treat the tech companies any differently from what the law already prescribes. Tough luck.

Bad take. It’s going to hit nearly everyone’s retirement accounts, for a start.

Can someone explain to me why this is a rational argument for the continuation of allowing these institutions to get in these precarious situations to begin with and then we use taxpayer money or government money to essentially bail them out or stop the bleeding and then they know that they can do these risky things again over and over and over again I mean it's a pattern of behavior at this point.
And it doesn't seem like most Americans really care that much about it as long as they're not losing from their retirement correct like it's not a they are seen it taken from them directly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UK authorities are scrambling.

https://www.ft.com/content/258d0732-d37b-49d6-8de8-b230a6568965

Likely behind a paywall for most. Some snippets:


UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt was on Saturday locked in talks over how to stop the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank from dealing a heavy blow to Britain’s tech sector.

More than 200 UK-based tech company executives have urged Downing Street to step in, warning that many companies faced an “existential threat” because they banked with the UK arm of SVB.

One London-based venture capitalist said: “There is growing confidence that the UK government will step in with liquidity measures on Monday.”

The Bank of England moved to put the UK arm of SVB into insolvency late on Friday following the shutdown earlier in the day of the bank’s US entity, but said it had “a limited presence in the UK and no critical functions supporting the financial system”.

On Saturday around 210 start-up founders and leaders signed an open letter to Hunt, warning that “the majority of us as tech founders are running numbers to see if we are potentially technically insolvent”.

This is why I’m laughing at all the “this is not a big deal” / “it’s just some small bank in California” takes. This collapse will have an impact worldwide for months, potentially even years to come.

Yes. The people who think this is “just California” seem ignorant.

It will have an impact on tech companies who should have been smarter and in most cases serve no important societal purpose. In the US we have resolution procedures to unwind failed banks and fairly distribute assets. There is no guarantee for uninsured deposits. I assume UK has a similar structure. There’s zero reason to treat the tech companies any differently from what the law already prescribes. Tough luck.

Bad take. It’s going to hit nearly everyone’s retirement accounts, for a start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the regulators were asleep on the wheel with this bank. How could you allow customer deposits to be used to loan out in risky venture debt or long term duration MBS that dont need to marked to market to conceal losses?

There's got to be alot of collateral damage if they dont come up with a mechanism to give company's deposits back in a timely manner so they can make payroll. The equity and debt holders of the bank should be wiped out for their incompetence for risk management.

When these long duration securities were purchased, rates were at 0. This is what happens when you starve the system of yield for too long- you force institutions to take more risk.

Maybe banks don’t need to chase “yield.” Maybe their primary job is to be safe and sound.

It's a balance. A bank's first line defense against losses is strong earnings, which, yes, does involve getting reasonable yield.

This guy gets it. A bank must be profitable to be healthy. This is banking 101.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the regulators were asleep on the wheel with this bank. How could you allow customer deposits to be used to loan out in risky venture debt or long term duration MBS that dont need to marked to market to conceal losses?

There's got to be alot of collateral damage if they dont come up with a mechanism to give company's deposits back in a timely manner so they can make payroll. The equity and debt holders of the bank should be wiped out for their incompetence for risk management.

When these long duration securities were purchased, rates were at 0. This is what happens when you starve the system of yield for too long- you force institutions to take more risk.

Maybe banks don’t need to chase “yield.” Maybe their primary job is to be safe and sound.

It's a balance. A bank's first line defense against losses is strong earnings, which, yes, does involve getting reasonable yield.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peter Theil did this on purpose

Peter Theil is the master Elon, Navaro, Bannon etc all answer to the KING.

Wake up people MAGA morons have destroyed this country and it will get way worse.

Who will be destroyed first MAGA idiots But hey keep voting Republcian traitors Russia will be boots on ground here 2026. This is not hard the lines are clear.

Peter Theil is an enemy to the US>

This. He is trying to get people up in arms and to yell about funding Ukraine instead give $$ to these sham banks although their CEO made millions cashing out right before and employees all got their bonuses Friday. Fraudsters, grifters, thieves.

Anonymous wrote:I love a good financial crisis. Such a great learning opportunity. Let the vegan lip gloss startups fail!

Anonymous wrote:Will this finally kill crypto so we don't have to hear about that scam anymore?

Anonymous wrote:Peter Theil did this on purpose

Peter Theil is the master Elon, Navaro, Bannon etc all answer to the KING.

Wake up people MAGA morons have destroyed this country and it will get way worse.

Who will be destroyed first MAGA idiots But hey keep voting Republcian traitors Russia will be boots on ground here 2026. This is not hard the lines are clear.

Peter Theil is an enemy to the US>

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the regulators were asleep on the wheel with this bank. How could you allow customer deposits to be used to loan out in risky venture debt or long term duration MBS that dont need to marked to market to conceal losses?

There's got to be alot of collateral damage if they dont come up with a mechanism to give company's deposits back in a timely manner so they can make payroll. The equity and debt holders of the bank should be wiped out for their incompetence for risk management.

When these long duration securities were purchased, rates were at 0. This is what happens when you starve the system of yield for too long- you force institutions to take more risk.

Maybe banks don’t need to chase “yield.” Maybe their primary job is to be safe and sound.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the regulators were asleep on the wheel with this bank. How could you allow customer deposits to be used to loan out in risky venture debt or long term duration MBS that dont need to marked to market to conceal losses?

There's got to be alot of collateral damage if they dont come up with a mechanism to give company's deposits back in a timely manner so they can make payroll. The equity and debt holders of the bank should be wiped out for their incompetence for risk management.

When these long duration securities were purchased, rates were at 0. This is what happens when you starve the system of yield for too long- you force institutions to take more risk.