@no1marauder saidAny help beyond the $250k is a travesty. In no circumstances should the govt help past 250, and they should not help the banks. The shareholders took a risk, why help the shareholders of the bank. Jesus
I'm checking the financial news outlets for more info. I've always heard there was a $250,000 limit for deposits to be protected by the FDIC and after that you were on your own if a bank failed. IF the Feds can unilaterally raise the fees to banks to cover deposits over that limit, I never heard of it. And, of course, banks will try to pass any additional fees on to consumers.
@no1marauder saidListen to AvJoe....Screw the rich bankers who f'd it up, and I feel sorry for people who deposit in banks that have no track record, when The Wells Fargos of the world are all around us. But, it is a risk they took, it was a choice, and they lost. There is no such thing in this country as a safety net in these circumstances. You invest, you lose, tough.
This article is informative: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/with-svb-and-signature-the-us-is-making-a-systemic-risk-exception-for-systemically-unimportant-banks/ar-AA18xF0O
Apparently, "the systemic risk exception" is being invoked for these two banks even though they don't qualify as "systemically important banks" BECAUSE of a change in the law at least one of ...[text shortened]... business and now others have to cover their rich depositors who exceed the limits of FDIC insurance.
Everyone needs to grow up. See how dangerous for us all, when people look to the govt as if it is a nanny.
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidKev is a Collectivist. To Kev, we are all connected, all in the same boat together, pooling all of our resources no matter the source. I am EXTREMELY the other persuasion. Hey Kev, what if I have no skin in the game? Do you even know what that means?
No your neighbour shouldn’t bail you out Joe that’s why we have a tax collection system so that when things go pear shaped we can respond collectively.
Tell your neighbour it’s fine we’ve got this.
You are saying that the neighbor should not bail me out (not use his money to help me), and then you say, unbelievably, laughing stock, that taxes that have been collected would be used to bail me out, to help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TAXES COLLECTED FROM THE NEIGHBOR!!!!!!!!! hahahahaha. 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@moonbus saidThat's true.
They invested too heavily in startups which failed.
And those risky investments were facilitated by the repeal of important guardrails provided by Dodd-Frank.
On 24 May, 2018...Donald Trump repealed those measures.
Donald Trump's deregulatory mantras have finally yielded predictable consequences.
1st it's Trains, now it's Banks: What's next Donald?
Critical Infrastructure like Buildings and Bridges? Or could it be the Air Lines?
Are you Conservachumps tired of winning yet?
@woofwoof saidYou will be proven wrong, these problems have nothing to do with trump ,
That's true.
And those risky investments were facilitated by the repeal of important guardrails provided by Dodd-Frank.
On 24 May, 2018...Donald Trump repealed those measures.
Donald Trump's deregulatory mantras have finally yielded predictable consequences.
1st it's Trains, now it's Banks: What's next Donald?
Critical Infrastructure like Buildings and Bridges? Or could it be the Air Lines?
Are you Conservachumps tired of winning yet?
Have you fellers ANY idea how much you and Biden blame Trump. ,,,,,for any and all things? You are like children in a school yard. Sad . Is there a man among you?Truly not realistic that all is Trump’s fault. Your posts are boring. With no substance.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@averagejoe1 saidYep, that's what Biden is claiming, it was not his fault, it all goes back to Trump.
TRUMP DID IT!
Meanwhile, the Democrat sheeple believe it and continue to follow him blindly down the road to ruin.
@no1marauder saidSVB failed because it was heavily invested in bonds and they are worth less than when they bought them. The FRS made the bonds worth less because they raised interest rates to fight the inflation the FRS created.
Looks like it might get ugly.
"The only bank failure larger than this one in American history was Washington Mutual, which had roughly $300 billion in customer deposits before the 2008 financial crisis."
"But more than 85% of the bank’s deposits were uninsured, according to estimates in a recent regulatory filing. That’s because FDIC deposit insurance is meant for ...[text shortened]... ry Summers are saying that uninsured big depositors should get bailed out by Uncle Sam. Should they?
This is all the FRS' fault. They made SVB fail by making the bonds they hold fail.
That is why they feel an obligation to insure all deposits. Don't expect to hear much about that fact in the news though. You are supposed to scapegoat SVB. The FRS does no wrong. They are just trying to fight inflation. As long as you buy that lie you cannot blame the FRS.
1 edit
@jj-adams saidGood point, road to ruin. For the record, when I continue to say that the mob of liberals will prevail in the end, it does not mean a literal 'win' for them. The world that they will have created would have not have a semblance of joy about it.
Yep, that's what Biden is claiming, it was not his fault, it all goes back to Trump.
Meanwhile, the Democrat sheeple believe it and continue to follow him blindly down the road to ruin.
Soylent Green comes to mind
@woofwoof saidLOL…now explain how
That's true.
And those risky investments were facilitated by the repeal of important guardrails provided by Dodd-Frank.
On 24 May, 2018...Donald Trump repealed those measures.
Donald Trump's deregulatory mantras have finally yielded predictable consequences.
1st it's Trains, now it's Banks: What's next Donald?
Critical Infrastructure like Buildings and Bridges? Or could it be the Air Lines?
Are you Conservachumps tired of winning yet?
2 edits
@mott-the-hoople saidJust saw Biden say, re the Slilcon Bank , we will 'do whatever is needed'. He also says that about supporting Ukraine. He will say it soon about Taiwan.......
LOL…now explain how
Are you sure you don't want a strong man, who has bad breath (and said 'grab pussy' at the same time the dirty old man Biden was sniffing young girls' hair)? That would be Trump. Putin and Xi know he is a man of action. YOU know, I dont know how we prevail if we concentrate our efforts on tents and gas stoves, such as that.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidA rather strange and callous position you're taking here. Many of their depositors are companies that rely on those deposits to meet payroll. This won't just impact rich people but people who literally need their paycheck to pay their bills. I know this for a fact as I have a family member who was terrified because the company they work for was threatened with suddenly not being able to meet payroll this week due to SVB being their primary bank. Multiply that by hundreds of such companies each employing hundreds or more of workers. I think the Biden administration made the right decision on this one. Sure this bailout of depositors helps rich people but also helps many more employees who otherwise were facing an abrupt loss of their income that they need to survive.
This article is informative: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/with-svb-and-signature-the-us-is-making-a-systemic-risk-exception-for-systemically-unimportant-banks/ar-AA18xF0O
Apparently, "the systemic risk exception" is being invoked for these two banks even though they don't qualify as "systemically important banks" BECAUSE of a change in the law at least one of ...[text shortened]... business and now others have to cover their rich depositors who exceed the limits of FDIC insurance.
2 edits
@ullr saidEvery bail out of the rich is excused in the same way with a kinda "reverse trickle down".
A rather strange and callous position you're taking here. Many of their depositors are companies that rely on those deposits to meet payroll. This won't just impact rich people but people who literally need their paycheck to pay their bills. I know this for a fact as I have a family member who was terrified because the company they work for was threatened with suddenly not be ...[text shortened]... y more employees who otherwise were facing an abrupt loss of their income that they need to survive.
How many companies are keeping their payrolls in bank accounts with more than $250,000? And of those companies, how many don't have other sufficient assets to meet legally obligated payrolls?
Damn few I suspect.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@averagejoe1 saidThere is a big difference between a shareholder and a depositor. The government is not helping shareholders. They've made that clear. Their investment in SVB is kaput. The depositors on the other hand through no real fault of their own were threatened, in many cases, of having millions of dollars of their money just evaporate and no ability to meet payroll. Hundreds of small businesses could have gone up in smoke in a heartbeat and then had to abruptly layoff thousands of employees due to something that most everybody did not see coming.
Any help beyond the $250k is a travesty. In no circumstances should the govt help past 250, and they should not help the banks. The shareholders took a risk, why help the shareholders of the bank. Jesus
1 edit
@ullr saidI disagree. The depositors knew that any amounts over $250,000 weren't insured.
There is a big difference between a shareholder and a depositor. The government is not helping shareholders. They've made that clear. Their investment in SVB is kaput. The depositors on the other hand through no real fault of their own were threatened, in many cases, of having millions of dollars of their money just evaporate and no ability to meet payroll. Hundreds of smal ...[text shortened]... d to abruptly layoff thousands of employees due to something that most everybody did not see coming.
So what's going to happen is other depositors are going to at least partially pay (to the extent the other banks pass on the newly assessed fees) for the foolishness of these depositors.