Anonymous wrote:S.2155 passed w /bipartisan support, just sayin’

Get real. It was a Republican bill thru and thru when the GOP controlled three branches of government.

They managed to peel off the Corporate Dems to get 67 votes in the Senate. But let’s not pretend Sherrod Brown or Liz Warren would’ve introduced S.2155.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

The utility company you work for?

None of your damn business. I run my own rig.

You asked the question. I presume you keep your money that you get paid for “running your own rig” in a bank, and expect to get that money back if the bankrupt. That’s what is happening here.

I don’t keep my money in the casino and I don’t keep it in any Silicon Valley club.

Don’t BS working people. Smell right off you.

Who knew that DC Urban Moms was such a hub for hard scrabble “linemen” to spend their Saturday mornings. Must be tough to type while up there stringing lines.

Get the rich! Only they drink wine.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/wine/article/silicon-valley-bank-wine-california-17831927.php

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are all of these libertarians etc calling on the Fed/FDIC to basically take over and secure the bank.

Keep in mind, this i only happening because Trump totally gutted regulations that would have prevented this from happening. So we are going to get a massive bailout for Silicon Valley Bank and yet people complain about a few thousand dollars in bailouts for student loans.

For one, the FDIC already took over the bank around 24 hours ago

Two, this is not caused by Trump gutting regulations. The cause was interest rate risk- recall people deposit money at banks and they turn around and lend money, in this case in the form of MBS and treasuries. The fed kept interest rates too low for too long and then they hiked rates precipitously, which caused huge losses for the bank on those securities that were purchased when interest rates were much lower

SVB would have been subject to a Dodd-Frank requirement for a stress test that likely would have uncovered this risk, but Trump and GOP congress removed that requirement for banks of this size in 2018.

Uncover risk? How about we uncover that FDIC can only cover 3 to 4 percent of holdings if many banks go at once? Is Dodd-Frank going to fix FDIC?

So you want to increase deposit insurance fees on banks? Go for it, I’ll support you.

No, I want the reserve requirements to be much higher than a few percentage points.

IOW, rely less on bailouts and don't cause the problem in the first place.

Reserve requirements and the percentage of insured deposits are two entirely separate things.

Of course. Did I say otherwise? Do I stutter?

I want the reserve requirements on accounts for the banks raised. The amount they have to hold back and not lend.

Deposit insurance does not need to be changed.

Eh, I don’t think raising reserve requirements would’ve done much. It wouldn’t have been politically feasible to raise them as much as necessary to prevent SVB’s bank run. Remember, the last year the story has been about how well the banks weathered COVID. Credit quality wasn’t an issue, large banks are in an excellent liquidity position.

The SVB story is about a bank that couldn’t properly risk manage hot money flows, while skirting necessary stress testing and liquidity requirements that would’ve prevented the bank run due to midsized bank de-regulation in 2018.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

The utility company you work for?

None of your damn business. I run my own rig.

You asked the question. I presume you keep your money that you get paid for “running your own rig” in a bank, and expect to get that money back if the bankrupt. That’s what is happening here.

I don’t keep my money in the casino and I don’t keep it in any Silicon Valley club.

Don’t BS working people. Smell right off you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are all of these libertarians etc calling on the Fed/FDIC to basically take over and secure the bank.

Keep in mind, this i only happening because Trump totally gutted regulations that would have prevented this from happening. So we are going to get a massive bailout for Silicon Valley Bank and yet people complain about a few thousand dollars in bailouts for student loans.

For one, the FDIC already took over the bank around 24 hours ago

Two, this is not caused by Trump gutting regulations. The cause was interest rate risk- recall people deposit money at banks and they turn around and lend money, in this case in the form of MBS and treasuries. The fed kept interest rates too low for too long and then they hiked rates precipitously, which caused huge losses for the bank on those securities that were purchased when interest rates were much lower

SVB would have been subject to a Dodd-Frank requirement for a stress test that likely would have uncovered this risk, but Trump and GOP congress removed that requirement for banks of this size in 2018.

Uncover risk? How about we uncover that FDIC can only cover 3 to 4 percent of holdings if many banks go at once? Is Dodd-Frank going to fix FDIC?

So you want to increase deposit insurance fees on banks? Go for it, I’ll support you.

No, I want the reserve requirements to be much higher than a few percentage points.

IOW, rely less on bailouts and don't cause the problem in the first place.

Reserve requirements and the percentage of insured deposits are two entirely separate things.

Of course. Did I say otherwise? Do I stutter?

I want the reserve requirements on accounts for the banks raised. The amount they have to hold back and not lend.

Deposit insurance does not need to be changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

The utility company you work for?

None of your damn business. I run my own rig.

You asked the question. I presume you keep your money that you get paid for “running your own rig” in a bank, and expect to get that money back if the bankrupt. That’s what is happening here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

The utility company you work for?

None of your damn business. I run my own rig.

Anonymous wrote:I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

The utility company you work for?

I am a lineman- who the hell bails out my truck when my transmission goes.

Stop bailing out the rich. You do it every damn year.

S.2155 passed w /bipartisan support, just sayin’

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out that being a bank for tech startups and venture capitalists is not easy money. Business models for investing and losing money for several years for a possible big payoff down the road are fine when interest rates and inflation are low, not so much when they are high. As a poster above said, the bank made stupid long-term investments and the tech bro depositors panicked and started a run on the bank.

Thiel got his funds $$ out all of it …. Which little bird alerted him? Thieves.

Anyone reasonably knowledgeable who bothered to look at their year end financials could have seen this was a troubled bank that was near insolvent if their securities were marked to market.

This is what happens when republicans control house.

We are nearly at the point in the ideological cycle where “libertarians” are crying for a bailout:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out that being a bank for tech startups and venture capitalists is not easy money. Business models for investing and losing money for several years for a possible big payoff down the road are fine when interest rates and inflation are low, not so much when they are high. As a poster above said, the bank made stupid long-term investments and the tech bro depositors panicked and started a run on the bank.

Thiel got his funds $$ out all of it …. Which little bird alerted him? Thieves.