Most of it is designed that way. Are you saying taxpayers won't be affected at all? Not one bit?
My questions was about the number of people who think banking is unregulated? Are there really a lot of Americans who think this way because it's not even remotely true. I wasn't disagreeing but wondering how many uniformed Americans are out there.
Ok, fair point. But I assume that is only currently authorized for accounts under $250k, right? A rule all these kings of capital knew when they put in more, right? So why are these very rich investors more deserving of a bailout than college debters?
You're going to have to be more specific on those regs, because that's not my understanding.
When Joe Blow goes under it usually only affects him and maybe a few others. When big banks go under they take a lot of people down with them. That is the difference.
www.reuters.com
That's a great business strategy. "Uncle Sam. You wouldn't want anything to happen to your economy, would you? Better pay your protection money and don't be late."
George Bailey explained all of this when there was a run on Bailey Building and Loan. ***
Very rich investors? Can you provide data to support this identification? I’ve been trying to find same. Could there be other banks or companies (payroll) in the >$250k depositor ranks? I honestly don’t know and was wondering if you might. It could help me form an opinion.
I'll look if I have time. I did see that this bank is odd in that something like >85% of deposits are not insured (as they exceed $250k).
Do you understand why SVB got into trouble and how the change in banking laws in 2018 caused it?
A normal depositor is not. Somebody with more than $250k has enough on the line that it is worthwhile for them to do some due diligence. And if big depositors weren't expecting bailouts, you would see banks competing on being sound and safe. And if banks were subject to that kind of market discipline, you'd probably see them stop concentrating risk. And they'd probably compete harder for stickier retail deposits.
www.forbes.com
Poorly written article with no specifics. It does state the core provisions of Dodd-Frank remain intact, while the new regulations are aimed at helping smaller community banks. I'm sure those core provisions still intact are what I'm thinking, which are requirements of liquidity, capital, balance sheet ratios, interest rate risk management, sound internal control structures, etc., etc. All required and still heavily regulated by different governing bodies.Trump signs bill easing U.S. bank rules into law
U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law on Thursday a bill that would ease rules on most banks for the first time since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing… I’m talking about people with deposit accounts at a bank. I’m not talking about investors of a bank. Shareholders of a bank will absolutely take a loss on their investment, if the bank fails.
When you claim that a simple Q like that is evidence of a warped mind.....that's when you know you've lost the plot, bud. Back off the propaganda, it's either making you stupid or exploiting it's pre-existness.
I agree with you that a lot of large depositors do understand the bank and how sound they are.
See the Forbes article. The proof here is that RELAXATION of these regs is specifically what SVB was lobbying for and pleased that they got. So it's kinda ridiculous to troll and claim the regs weren't relaxed on them.
Well, depends on what you call mom and pop, but a business with 150 employees averaging $40k a year is going to have a biweekly payroll that is north of $250k. A company that keeps working capital in an account rather than relying on a line of credit can get over $250k and still not be super big depending on the industry.
That's very possible, but hardly a reason to encourage it. Set up a system for interest free deposits to the Fed, and if they choose interest-bearing private accounts then they do so at risk. Simultaneously set up a system to bailout depositors if needed for the economy, but do so at great pain to those benefitting. My suggestion: forfeit of past interest earned times 3, plus forfeiture of any tax break for the next 10 years. Plus dollar for dollar match to reducing student loan interest payments.
My understanding it got in trouble because of the run. People panic. The issue that caused the panic was only 2.25 billion which could have been fix fairly easy, but the run took 48 billion of cash out of it hands. That was the problem. You sit here and blame Trump, but it was the rise in interest rates that caused the 2.25 billion shortages. US government bonds are one of the safest investments you can have but when interest rates rise the bonds value goes down. Damn that bank for having so much tied up in US Government Bonds. Everyone not in banking system is trying to make hay while the sun is shining over this.How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise
Every couple of years lenders and traders tell me that ‘this time, it will be different.’ Silicon Valley Bank-induced chaos shows that bank deregulation always ends in the same painful way.
A depositor is entitled to access their deposits. A debtor is not entitled to loan forgiveness. Your trying to make an analogy between the two is either warped or an attempt to provoke someone to respond to your post IE being a TROLL
Dude, this is about forfeited deposits that are gone (or on delay) because the private bank failed. They are not entitled to them in any way whatsoever. It's an entirely accurate analogy. That you don't agree does not make it warped. It's stupid to think so.
This just eased Dodd Frank Regs on smaller community banks and I'm not seeing anything this bill did related to SVB Failure. We also need to take a look at how big investors are so geared towards ESG Investments that Team Biden introduced and has promoted instead of looking for the best and safest investments with attractive returns.Trump signs bill easing U.S. bank rules into law
U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law on Thursday a bill that would ease rules on most banks for the first time since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
Pretty ridiculous to defend relaxed scrutiny while simultaneously arguing for a bailout, and doing so by saying well you can't absolutely prove that more rigorous scrutiny would have absolutely prevented this.
I thought SVB had more. But shouldn't their investments be scrutinized? They lost out on tech investments it appears due to rising interest rates. But if the bill you mentioned was so bad back then, why are we not seeing more banks with less than $250B going under as well? Maybe we'll be seeing more soon? I dunno. I'm hoping SVB was just due to their Exec's investment dumbassedry and a one off.
Some people hate banks so much they forget the individual customers. Isn't this the stuff the FDIC is for?
SVB appears to be an outlier. They had more uninsured deposits, and those are among a class of elites with the ear of media elites that will argue for their bailout. Plus, they were more prone to a bank run because their investors all talk to each other and act together.
