Anonymous wrote:I’m moving out of Ally to Marcus.

You go, girl!

That article was super misleading because it's not primarily the same margin issue that caused SVB to fail.
Lots of banks' margins went down because the value of long term bond holdings went down due to rapid interest rate increases. Banks do need to be attentive to this. What was unique about SVB is 1) it banks with a LOT of tech start ups that were experiencing cash crunches at the same time due to interest rate rises which triggered a bank run, 2) it used a merger with another bank to artificially change its margin requirements so its margin issues were more pronounced than the others.

Something like 97% of SVB's money was tied up in accounts over 250k because is served so many businesses, a bank like Ally is nearly exclusively focused on personal individual banking. Not in the same universe.

Sandy Spring is a DC area bank, surely with lots of feds as depositors. It's not a silicone valley or NYC community bank.

I’m moving out of Ally to Marcus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

But if they had taken that fund and paid off outstanding debt, they would have saved $70B in interest.

That's not how the government works. Neither Reps or Dems.

My point was that there are opportunity costs to a pot of money, just because they “made” some money doesn’t mean it was the most prudent use of cash to save bankers jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

But if they had taken that fund and paid off outstanding debt, they would have saved $70B in interest.

That's not how the government works. Neither Reps or Dems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn

Whistle past the graveyard if you must...

My accounts at one of the banks on this list are well below the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit, so I'm really not at all worried about what would happen even in the somewhat unlikely event that it did fail. The same bank holds my mortgage, so who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and whoever buys their assets out of receivership will forget about me.

This is not how it works.

How soon do you think your money would become available? If we are talking a run of nearly a dozen banks your money would be locked up for a long time. The government is more likely to “forget” about your bank account than the loans that get sold. Collecting is much more important to the stakeholders than paying out what is owed to the peasants.

Obviously it's not how it works, I was kidding.

The FDIC insurance works just fine, though, it would not be a long time before I had access to my insured deposits.