"I’m grateful that the Treasury and Fed guaranteed deposits on Sunday afternoon (this is very different from “bailing out” Silicon Valley Bank, by the way—it simply means that depositors won’t lose their money). I only wonder what may have happened if this were announced earlier, without the 48-hour panic before the statement. " Then tel…
"I’m grateful that the Treasury and Fed guaranteed deposits on Sunday afternoon (this is very different from “bailing out” Silicon Valley Bank, by the way—it simply means that depositors won’t lose their money). I only wonder what may have happened if this were announced earlier, without the 48-hour panic before the statement. " Then tell me what is the value of an FDIC statement that deposits are guaranteed up to $250K. You are suggesting guarantee should be stated as unlimited. That absolves the institution of any responsibility for managing investment risk. When does the gambling stop? Depositors should understand the bank balance sheet and risks if they want to deposit more than the $250K guaranteed. I think $250K is all they should get from the Fed.
The guarantee is just a minimum. When someone comes over to my house for a dinner party, I guarantee them at least a meal. They may get seconds or thirds, or they may not, but they will at least be fed.
The $250K guarantee is adequate for the average individual, but makes no sense for larger companies that have multi-million dollar payrolls. Imagine the bureaucracy if, say, Microsoft had to keep its money in 50,000 different banks so it would be insured and could always make payroll.
The ONLY part of this that really bothers me, though, is how quickly the Feds jump when the interests of the wealthy are at stake but, for everyone else, it takes years to get any kind of meaningful action.
What?!?! No, it isn't. The F.D.I.C.'s 250k is the _maximum_ insured value of your deposits in any _single_ account--the only way to hedge that is to divide greater wealth into multiple accounts, which many very rich people _do_ for just that reason. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not mentally competent to hold a bank account. There's a reason those little signs read "Up to..."
Honestly, I cannot believe the level of naïveté here.
People coming over to your house are your guests, not your customers. And whether you give them seconds or thirds is your decision based on what you have available in your fridge, pantry and bar. So your analogy does not fly. I
I doubt that this government would help a heavily O & G bank in Texas or Oklahoma. When the government decides who it will and who it will not help it is picking winners and losers. Which is not the job of the government. I do agree that the $250,000 may need to be revisited but largely based on the fact that the same government has so devalued the dollar. They are like hamsters on a wheel and I want out of the cage they are running.
I posted this in another thread, but again THIS should have been one of the central points to the article. Hypocrisy. For a group who supposedly cares so much about the “average Joe”, would they have given 💩💩 if this was a small local or regional bank? How many of those depositors were donors? Supporters? Friends? These are all just questions swirling because I’m not going to assume or claim my conclusions as fact without any actual hard evidence.
Yes, the "too big to fail" is bullshit but Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, etc. are ALWAYS going to protect their multimillions.
In my town, people run for office because they care about the town. They may have differing views on what's best but they're not going into it to become multimillionaires.
Going into Congress for a $174K a year job then becoming a multimillionaire within a few years just isn't possible without corruption. The problem is, our corruption is LEGALIZED.
I would like to be invited for dinner and I will have seconds! But, insurance is paying for a level of risk. The level is set at $250K. Are the fees assessed large companies for FDIC insurance based on $250K or something more? If my deposit is $1M and yours is $10K, do I pay 100x more fees than you do for the $250K insurance? If big companies are to be insured to higher levels of deposits, the rules need to state that.
Maybe they should form banks that only hold money for payroll.
My daughter works for a big tech company and was telling me pretty much the same thing you just said. She and her colleagues were all fearful of not getting paid as well as the possibility of losing their jobs.
My understanding is that what happened Sunday is that they guaranteed above the $250k threshold. The Dems say they want to stick it to the rich, but they change the rules afterwards and do the exact opposite!!
This insanity won't stop until people are investigated, prosecuted and stripped of their ill-gotten gains. There is credible information about stock sales by execs and massive bonuses paid just days before the bank failed. That's not misfeasance, it's malfeasance.
"I’m grateful that the Treasury and Fed guaranteed deposits on Sunday afternoon (this is very different from “bailing out” Silicon Valley Bank, by the way—it simply means that depositors won’t lose their money). I only wonder what may have happened if this were announced earlier, without the 48-hour panic before the statement. " Then tell me what is the value of an FDIC statement that deposits are guaranteed up to $250K. You are suggesting guarantee should be stated as unlimited. That absolves the institution of any responsibility for managing investment risk. When does the gambling stop? Depositors should understand the bank balance sheet and risks if they want to deposit more than the $250K guaranteed. I think $250K is all they should get from the Fed.
The guarantee is just a minimum. When someone comes over to my house for a dinner party, I guarantee them at least a meal. They may get seconds or thirds, or they may not, but they will at least be fed.
The $250K guarantee is adequate for the average individual, but makes no sense for larger companies that have multi-million dollar payrolls. Imagine the bureaucracy if, say, Microsoft had to keep its money in 50,000 different banks so it would be insured and could always make payroll.
The ONLY part of this that really bothers me, though, is how quickly the Feds jump when the interests of the wealthy are at stake but, for everyone else, it takes years to get any kind of meaningful action.
"The guarantee is just a minimum."
What?!?! No, it isn't. The F.D.I.C.'s 250k is the _maximum_ insured value of your deposits in any _single_ account--the only way to hedge that is to divide greater wealth into multiple accounts, which many very rich people _do_ for just that reason. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not mentally competent to hold a bank account. There's a reason those little signs read "Up to..."
Honestly, I cannot believe the level of naïveté here.
wealthy allies , you think if it was exxon they wouldn't let them get a haircut?
Like then maybe those companies should take the risk-i.e. Lose their money- if they don't check out the bank's fundamentals?
People coming over to your house are your guests, not your customers. And whether you give them seconds or thirds is your decision based on what you have available in your fridge, pantry and bar. So your analogy does not fly. I
I doubt that this government would help a heavily O & G bank in Texas or Oklahoma. When the government decides who it will and who it will not help it is picking winners and losers. Which is not the job of the government. I do agree that the $250,000 may need to be revisited but largely based on the fact that the same government has so devalued the dollar. They are like hamsters on a wheel and I want out of the cage they are running.
I posted this in another thread, but again THIS should have been one of the central points to the article. Hypocrisy. For a group who supposedly cares so much about the “average Joe”, would they have given 💩💩 if this was a small local or regional bank? How many of those depositors were donors? Supporters? Friends? These are all just questions swirling because I’m not going to assume or claim my conclusions as fact without any actual hard evidence.
Me too. If you read anything I post with the words "I think" it is my opinion.
Yes, the "too big to fail" is bullshit but Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, etc. are ALWAYS going to protect their multimillions.
In my town, people run for office because they care about the town. They may have differing views on what's best but they're not going into it to become multimillionaires.
Going into Congress for a $174K a year job then becoming a multimillionaire within a few years just isn't possible without corruption. The problem is, our corruption is LEGALIZED.
I would like to be invited for dinner and I will have seconds! But, insurance is paying for a level of risk. The level is set at $250K. Are the fees assessed large companies for FDIC insurance based on $250K or something more? If my deposit is $1M and yours is $10K, do I pay 100x more fees than you do for the $250K insurance? If big companies are to be insured to higher levels of deposits, the rules need to state that.
As a quick last thought, I still don't think that these bailouts are healthy for capitalism. The herd needs to be thinned of bad actors over time.
To your analogy, I want my dinner guests to go home and not continually bellying up to the bar for a free meal!!
Maybe they should form banks that only hold money for payroll.
My daughter works for a big tech company and was telling me pretty much the same thing you just said. She and her colleagues were all fearful of not getting paid as well as the possibility of losing their jobs.
I feel for your daughter.
My understanding is that what happened Sunday is that they guaranteed above the $250k threshold. The Dems say they want to stick it to the rich, but they change the rules afterwards and do the exact opposite!!
Now Chris, there go your lying eyes. Put your blinders back on before you sow discontent amongst the herd.
👍🤠Don’t hear this a lot in the discussion of this SVB situation. “Moral Hazard”.
Ticker symbol SVB
http://mail.openinsider.com/screener?s=Svb+&o=&pl=&ph=&ll=&lh=&fd=730&fdr=&td=0&tdr=&fdlyl=&fdlyh=&daysago=&xp=1&xs=1&vl=&vh=&ocl=&och=&sic1=-1&sicl=100&sich=9999&grp=0&nfl=&nfh=&nil=&nih=&nol=&noh=&v2l=&v2h=&oc2l=&oc2h=&sortcol=0&cnt=100&page=1
This insanity won't stop until people are investigated, prosecuted and stripped of their ill-gotten gains. There is credible information about stock sales by execs and massive bonuses paid just days before the bank failed. That's not misfeasance, it's malfeasance.