This lineman is done. Enjoy the rich coffe talks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

The federal reserve sets the reserve requirements. It's currently at ZERO.

Fractional banking can be risky. Zero reserve is awful.

The FDIC backs accounts to 250K per individual per institution. That FDIC insurance does not need to be raised.

The zero reserve needs to be raised significantly in this shell game. Any questions?

Dude, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

Look at that, MMT has no risks and the govt can print money for an infinite amount of time to grease the economy. Why are soooo many boom bust cycles caused by the federal reserve and easy money? And here they wanted to keep injecting more and more stimulus and keep rates cut for forever. The sugar rushes always, aalllllways cause a diabetic crash when the piper eventually must be paid.

Everyone was so confident and felt good when their stock portfolios, 401ks, and home values got artificially pumped from 2009-2021 as the fed kept interest rates artificially low, trillions of dollars were injected into the economy, and the fed blew up their balance sheet to almost $10 trillion. Now the fake economy is collapsing when the inflation demon has been awoken and the consequences for sugar rush must be paid. Time and time again, lax monetary and fiscal policies blow up the economy. There are no free lunches and easy money. It's amazing how people still don't learn this lesson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

The federal reserve sets the reserve requirements. It's currently at ZERO.

Fractional banking can be risky. Zero reserve is awful.

The FDIC backs accounts to 250K per individual per institution. That FDIC insurance does not need to be raised.

The zero reserve needs to be raised significantly in this shell game. Any questions?

Dude, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

I get you googled reserve requirement and found this. It doesn’t say what you think it says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

The federal reserve sets the reserve requirements. It's currently at ZERO.

Fractional banking can be risky. Zero reserve is awful.

The FDIC backs accounts to 250K per individual per institution. That FDIC insurance does not need to be raised.

The zero reserve needs to be raised significantly in this shell game. Any questions?

Dude, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk to Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, they’re Corporate Dems

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen several people whose credentials seem like they might be in a position to know what's going on with the banking system calling for a 50 bp emergency rate CUT and discount window opening first thing Monday.

Really? How would a rate cut address any of this? I could see them providing emergency supports to other banks to make sure they don't go under.

SVB failed because they bought a ton of bonds with almost 0% yields before rates started rising. The fed raising rates means newer bonds have way higher yields, so the ones SVB hold have to be sold at huge losses.

Anonymous wrote:Get the rich! Only they drink wine.

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

From the article: one of the most pressing issues is making payroll...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

The federal reserve sets the reserve requirements. It's currently at ZERO.

Fractional banking can be risky. Zero reserve is awful.

The FDIC backs accounts to 250K per individual per institution. That FDIC insurance does not need to be raised.

The zero reserve needs to be raised significantly in this shell game. Any questions?

Dude, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

The federal reserve sets the reserve requirements. It's currently at ZERO.

Fractional banking can be risky. Zero reserve is awful.

The FDIC backs accounts to 250K per individual per institution. That FDIC insurance does not need to be raised.

The zero reserve needs to be raised significantly in this shell game. Any questions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think you’re the first person to talk down to me? Go to hell.

D- impression.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The stress tests for interest rate risk were not severe enough to have caught SVB, and the bank would have passed the liquidity requirements easily--60% of its balance sheet was in securities, mostly governments.

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.

You wrote: “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?”

The FDIC does not set reserve requirements. Reserve requirements are much higher than 3-4 percent. But only 3-4 percent of SVB’s deposits were insured. So it sure seems you were mixing the two up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think you’re the first person to talk down to me? Go to hell.