2023 bank failures

[52-80 19140]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Clearly it's not impossible.

20 years of history. depositors were backstopped on (afaik) all of them

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/

7 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I liked this post because you’re as confused as I am. This is obvious. It’s akin to saying, in a bankruptcy, equity owners should get paid before creditors. Yeah, no. Not at all. Totally backwards thinking.  

at some point, you wonder whether the display of obtuseness is intentional or natural

https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/priority.html

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Clearly it's not impossible.

How is this at all clear to you?  

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

4 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

In any case, to me it just seems completely and utterly obvious you want to incentivize people to keep their money in banks rather than encourage them to withdraw their deposits as soon as possible as soon as there is some kind of trouble. That's what the FDIC insurance was set up for in the first place. Not making people whole simply encourages behaviors that are not healthy for our economy. I simply don't see the depositors as the bad guys here. 

But that's not how everyone feels about it, no matter how obvious it seems to me. It's the Robespierrian attitudes of parties on all sides that gets me scared.

The FDIC literally incentivizes people to keep money in banks by covering up to 250K

Why should the taxpayer cover ALL deposits? 

Why should banks be allowed to speculate with depositors money if they’re not allowed any downside risk? 

 

[chainsaw 9850]

we need to put an end to fucking around without finding out

[SL Xpress 7513]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

The FDIC literally incentivizes people to keep money in banks by covering up to 250K

Why should the taxpayer cover ALL deposits? 

Why should banks be allowed to speculate with depositors money if they’re not allowed any downside risk? 

 

Would taxpayers be covering all of the deposits? That's not clear to me. It seems more likely the assets are sold to another bank. 

I'm not sure I would classify what happened at SVB as speculation, unless we're using that word in the loosest sense. They lost their shirts overly investing in long term T-bills. That's not speculation in my mind. That's simple stupidity. 

Going out of business with the loss of all shareholder value seems like a pretty significant downside risk to me. But obviously I see it differently than you do. 

[SL Xpress 7513]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

we need to put an end to fucking around without finding out

Again, I don't understand this. The bank closing down, the loss of liquidity for any assets in the bank for at least some period of time, the erasure of shareholder value, the likely loss of employment...none of that screams fuck around and find out to you?

To me the difference isn't so much about whether there should or shouldn't be consequences. The difference is the desire for blood for anyone involved, particularly since inherently they're worth more than $250k in order to even be part of the conversation. 

I just remember the same mentality surrounding Lehman Brothers when they were allowed to go under, and what kind of consequences that caused. Not to mention the complete and utter lack of lessons learned because they were allowed to fail. 

There's a clear middle ground somewhere here, and part of that middle ground to me is that the depositors are made whole. As they will be. 

[Chopper 17228]

[RollLeft 5040]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

 

OK so #5 on that list is my bank Frost. I’m not a bank auditor. Cause for concern? 

No.  

(credit to Blotto for the graphic)

[Chopper 17228]

22 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Again, I don't understand this. The bank closing down, the loss of liquidity for any assets in the bank for at least some period of time, the erasure of shareholder value, the likely loss of employment...none of that screams fuck around and find out to you?

To me the difference isn't so much about whether there should or shouldn't be consequences. The difference is the desire for blood for anyone involved, particularly since inherently they're worth more than $250k in order to even be part of the conversation. 

I just remember the same mentality surrounding Lehman Brothers when they were allowed to go under, and what kind of consequences that caused. Not to mention the complete and utter lack of lessons learned because they were allowed to fail. 

There's a clear middle ground somewhere here, and part of that middle ground to me is that the depositors are made whole. As they will be. 

LOL you keep saying that they'll be made whole as if, if you keep saying it, it'll come true.

Not trying to brag at all but I have more than enough liquid assets to be in the category of those who you (and the dolt longing for freshman year) seem to think want "blood" and to fight a "class war" simply because we don't believe the government should make people whole when they've lost money due to their own, poor financial decisions. I am far from a savvy investor but when I put my money in a bank and when I invested it with a financial advisor, the first question I asked was about the insurance on the account, and how that impacted my investment. It's why I have multiple banks, multiple investment vehicles and multiple accounts. For someone with 10x or 100x millions more than I, if they didn't understand the risks, or weren't willing to take the time to find out, then hiring a financial advisor or company controller should have been step 1.  Limiting your risk is only as complicated as you want to make it.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Chopper

[SL Xpress 7513]

4 minutes ago, Chopper said:

LOL you keep saying that they'll be made whole as if, if you keep saying it, it'll come true.

Not trying to brag at all but I have more than enough liquid assets to be in the category of those who you (and the dolt longing for freshman year) seem to think want "blood" and to fight a "class war" simply because we don't believe the government should make people whole when they've lost money due to their own, poor financial decisions. I am far from a savvy investor but when I put my money in a bank and when I invested it with a financial advisor, the first question I asked was about the insurance on the account, and how that impacted my investment. It's why I have multiple banks, multiple investment vehicles and multiple accounts. For someone with 10x or 100x millions more than I, if they didn't understand the risks, or weren't willing to take the time to find out, then hiring a financial advisor or company controller should have been step 1.  Limiting your risk is only as complicated as you want to make it.

Well, it's not going to take years. I'll post an "I told you so" post when it happens.

I don't think personal wealth dictates where an individual sits on the issue. You can be wealthy and still think the rich are soaking this country for all its worth and it needs to stop. Or you can be poor and think the government taxing the rich and putting too many rules out there is what is stopping this country from greatness.

My problem is with the level of vitriol and righteous anger regardless of which side one is on, and the level of win at all costs that is either employed or considered as fair game. And actually none of that is nearly as concerning as the direction it's all heading in, and has been for quite some time, with no relief in sight. I'm fully convinced much more terrible things are going to happen in this country than have occurred so far. I don't believe we can be a functioning society if things go the way I see them going. 

[Dbeasy 15039]

I find it interesting that people think they’ve made sure their wealth is safe. The only investments that are truly safe are $250k or less in a bank with FDIC, or holding treasuries directly with the federal government and not via a brokerage.

Someone more knowledgeable on the inner workings of the financial system can describe why funds invested in safe assets at a brokerage are not necessarily safe. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

4 hours ago, pantone159 said:

It is like nobody in the industry is over 40 and so has no memory of interest rates being other than zero. Interest rates now are not 'high'. They are about 'normal' now. The past 15 years have been the abnormal ones.

I just bought a house at 6.1. The House I bought in 2004 was 5.75.  It’s not like we are talking pre war here.

[Chopper 17228]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Clearly it's not impossible.

SVB's appeal to the Silicon Valley VCs was that it was not a "too big too fail" bank. Therefore SVB could engage in certain risks like trading stocks, commodities and derivatives for profit. They also avoided stringent oversight that would have perhaps enabled the Federal Reserve to catch their death spiral before the run on SVB happened on Friday, thanks to (edit: the political muscle of) those same VC firms. SVB's ability to engage in certain investments is what eventually led to their demise. But it's also what gave them inroads in Silicon Valley that larger banks wouldn't have been able to pull off. Finding a buyer for a bank with the balance sheet of SVB and a clientele who don't particularly want to do business with a traditional bank (see SVB, see Crypto) will be a challenge. Especially because the bank's the Federal Reserve hold the most leverage over are precisely the TBTF banks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Chopper

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

I didn’t see that. That is probably IF they had been required to mark their securities to market. Which banks aren’t; in normal circumstances they would’ve held their $91B securities portfolio to maturity and recouped the whole thing with return. The issue is, their securities book had dropped considerably in value since it was heavily weighted in bonds (with rising rates, bonds fall in value) and they HAD to liquidate those bonds because first the tech industry needed their cash and withdrew deposits from SVB, and then there was a classic bank run that occurred within, literally, 24 hours that nuked the bank. No other bank in America has all these dynamics. 

Books will be written, and quickly, on this debacle and I can’t wait to read more. 

Michael Lewis is already eyeing a new house on Lake Como.

[Chopper 17228]

12 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I find it interesting that people think they’ve made sure their wealth is safe. The only investments that are truly safe are $250k or less in a bank with FDIC, or holding treasuries directly with the federal government and not via a brokerage.

Someone more knowledgeable on the inner workings of the financial system can describe why funds invested in safe assets at a brokerage are not necessarily safe. 

Tell me you don't know what the SIPC is without telling me.

[Nicole44 22056]

I’m over my skis on this one. Shocker I know. But I still find it fascinating. Can someone explain how SVB tanked like that without being condescending? I still can’t understand why Bennigan’s failed but that shitshow Chili’s is still around. I understand diversifying and all that and interest rates. I’m not asking for politics…how did a bank go from being heralded a month ago to this? Was it just a run on money? Sorry again…

Edited March 11, 2023 by Nicole44

[Chopper 17228]

13 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m over my skis on this one. Shocker I know. But I still find it fascinating. Can someone explain how SVB tanked like that without being condescending? I still can’t understand why Bennigan’s and that shitshow Chili’s is still around. I understand diversifying and all that and interest rates. I’m not asking for politics…how did a bank go from being heralded a month ago to this? Was it just a run on money? Sorry again…

They purchased long-term US bonds. Some of their clients however were running short on cash and drew down their deposit balance. VC firms weren't handing out money like they had been. SVB announced on Wednesday that they had to sell some of those bonds at a loss (US gov't bonds at low interest rates bought during the pandemic). A VC (Peter Thiel) told his invested firms to pull their money out of SVB asap and that triggered a run on the bank, as in, the bank's liquidity was not enough to meet the demands for withdrawals.

edit - you may find this thread informative...kind of a blow by blow from the marketing side written by a Fortune 100 VP for Corp Affairs.

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Chopper

[Nice Guy Eddie 13506]

8 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m over my skis on this one. Shocker I know. But I still find it fascinating. Can someone explain how SVB tanked like that without being condescending? I still can’t understand why Bennigan’s failed but that shitshow Chili’s is still around. I understand diversifying and all that and interest rates. I’m not asking for politics…how did a bank go from being heralded a month ago to this? Was it just a run on money? Sorry again…

My understanding is that they invested in risky funds and in treasury products that have greatly been reduced in value due to increases in interest rates.  In other words, they have less money than they owe depositors. When depositors realized what was happening, everyone rushed to get their money out.

it Was basically an old timey bank run but instead if Aunt Bea withdrawing her $100 it was VCs and startups wiring millions out.

SVB still has billions in assets but they are unable to quickly unwind investments to pay for the outgoing wires.  I assume that either the govt bails out the depositors to prevent a growing problem across the economy, or someone steps in and buys SVP for 40-70 cents on the dollar. For the later, a buyer has to have confidence they fully understand the problem.

[Nivek 16916]

29 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Well, it's not going to take years. I'll post an "I told you so" post when it happens.

I don't think personal wealth dictates where an individual sits on the issue. You can be wealthy and still think the rich are soaking this country for all its worth and it needs to stop. Or you can be poor and think the government taxing the rich and putting too many rules out there is what is stopping this country from greatness.

My problem is with the level of vitriol and righteous anger regardless of which side one is on, and the level of win at all costs that is either employed or considered as fair game. And actually none of that is nearly as concerning as the direction it's all heading in, and has been for quite some time, with no relief in sight. I'm fully convinced much more terrible things are going to happen in this country than have occurred so far. I don't believe we can be a functioning society if things go the way I see them going. 

I am doing a shit job of multitasking.   I suppose what I am poorly trying to illustrate is how the retail investor is the one who will get nothing from the securities they hold, while the account holders (including the businesses and individuals) who exceeded the insurance coverage will get priority even though they also failed in the stewardship of their money.  Ultimately those individuals and organizations are likely higher net worth than the retail investor.    In other words, it looks like the richer members of society and the poorer members of society will have unequal outcomes yet again.  

[Bevo 13558]

14 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m over my skis on this one. Shocker I know. But I still find it fascinating. Can someone explain how SVB tanked like that without being condescending? I still can’t understand why Bennigan’s failed but that shitshow Chili’s is still around. I understand diversifying and all that and interest rates. I’m not asking for politics…how did a bank go from being heralded a month ago to this? Was it just a run on money? Sorry again…

We are in a system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are required to be available for withdrawal. Banks only need to keep a specific amount of cash on hand and can create loans from the money you deposit. This expands the economy by freeing capital for lending.

When you create an account at a bank, in the contract, you agree to allow that bank to use a percentage of your deposits as loans to other bank customers. This doesn't mean you don't have access to the money you deposited; it only means that if you want to remove more than the percentage a bank keeps on hand, such as the entire balance, from the account, the bank will need to access funds from somewhere else to give you your balance.

 

So when the bank only has a few customers who have a lot of money, it makes the bank more susceptible to bank runs. It only takes a small percent of its customers to withdraw all of their money to create a liquidity crisis for the bank.

[Rimbo 25908]

38 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I find it interesting that people think they’ve made sure their wealth is safe. The only investments that are truly safe are $250k or less in a bank with FDIC, or holding treasuries directly with the federal government and not via a brokerage.

 

There's no such thing as having wealth that is "safe." There is only risk management, and there are definitely ways to manage risk that are better than others.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

6 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I guess I’m the baddie in the thread because I agree with the tenor of his arguments. Not necessarily the conclusion it’s the government’s fault when the bank fails, but there are unintended consequences for the depositors not being made whole, and it’s unclear what those unintended consequences will be. 

It sounds like we’ll find out. 

Is guaranteeing deposits really the same as a bailout?

[Chopper 17228]

@Nicole44 wikipedia has a concise description, explaining what happened, the timing, and the machinations. You can see the important dates for yourself and think back to the insider stock sales planned at the end of January and whether or not you think those were ethical.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

18 minutes ago, Bevo said:

We are in a system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are required to be available for withdrawal. Banks only need to keep a specific amount of cash on hand and can create loans from the money you deposit. This expands the economy by freeing capital for lending.

When you create an account at a bank, in the contract, you agree to allow that bank to use a percentage of your deposits as loans to other bank customers. This doesn't mean you don't have access to the money you deposited; it only means that if you want to remove more than the percentage a bank keeps on hand, such as the entire balance, from the account, the bank will need to access funds from somewhere else to give you your balance.

 

So when the bank only has a few customers who have a lot of money, it makes the bank more susceptible to bank runs. It only takes a small percent of its customers to withdraw all of their money to create a liquidity crisis for the bank.

That and the bank is also permitted to invest some part of the deposits in securities, in this case relatively low risk bonds that did get hammered in a rising-rate environment.  So their overall asset value dropped.

So the depositors saw the asset crisis and didn't want to be holding the bag, so began to withdraw deposits at a rate that SVB couldn't potentially cover.

It is also the nature of their depositors (startups burning cash) that they can have high withdrawal rates, even without intending to make a run on the bank.  But that need for cash is what increased their fearfulness.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

Question for the savvy.  It appears that SVB was too loaded up on low-interest bonds with I think I saw a 3-year average maturity.  So their choice was to hold them returning low interest, to maturity, or sell out of them and take a bath.

The plan was to sell out, take a bath, and make up the difference by selling new stock.

Why, though?

I understand, I think, that those bonds would be marked to market and put a hit on the balance sheet, but why make that real?  Why not just do the capital raise?

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Question for the savvy.  It appears that SVB was too loaded up on low-interest bonds with I think I saw a 3-year average maturity.  So their choice was to hold them returning low interest, to maturity, or sell out of them and take a bath.

The plan was to sell out, take a bath, and make up the difference by selling new stock.

Why, though?

I understand, I think, that those bonds would be marked to market and put a hit on the balance sheet, but why make that real?  Why not just do the capital raise?

You are over the target.  They had the intention to hold to maturity, but not the ability.

[RollLeft 5040]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m over my skis on this one. Shocker I know. But I still find it fascinating. Can someone explain how SVB tanked like that without being condescending? I still can’t understand why Bennigan’s failed but that shitshow Chili’s is still around. I understand diversifying and all that and interest rates. I’m not asking for politics…how did a bank go from being heralded a month ago to this? Was it just a run on money? Sorry again…

[BamaATL 16593]

I'm just a simple caveman, things like treasury securities frighten and scare me.  As I type into this magic box that lets me talk to my far more advanced ancestors, I just find myself confused and scared.  What I do know for sure is that pass thru tax implications and 1031 exchanges are essential parts of a viable long term economy.  

On a serious note, what's going to happen to all these bullshit tech companies that have been floating on venture capital for years and never making a profit in the next few months?

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

On a serious note, what's going to happen to all these bullshit tech companies that have been floating on venture capital for years and never making a profit in the next few months?

It's all about growing the user base and making it all scaleable, man.  Don't you get it?  The future profits will be immense!  Just hang on for a couple more quarters!

[ftf82 485]

ELI5. How is this different than the S&L crisis where savings and loans invested long term (mortgages) and borrowed (deposits) short term and got whipsawed by rising rates in the late 70s/early 80s? And if so, did SVB's executives not study any of that in grad school?

Edited March 12, 2023 by ftf82
can't spell gud

[atomheartbevo 89618]

6 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I realize there's a current of "fuck the rich" that goes on, and it represents a legitimate point of view in some ways with the level of wealth inequality we have.

It’s more like “fuck the stupid”.

[Incredulity 11643]

17 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm just a simple caveman, things like treasury securities frighten and scare me.  As I type into this magic box that lets me talk to my far more advanced ancestors, I just find myself confused and scared.  What I do know for sure is that pass thru tax implications and 1031 exchanges are essential parts of a viable long term economy.  

On a serious note, what's going to happen to all these bullshit tech companies that have been floating on venture capital for years and never making a profit in the next few months?

A boatload of laptop people are about to find out about earning a living.

[Chopper 17228]

37 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Leave the cloak room out of this or better yet go to the CE and take this bullshit there. Battles between congress and the executive branch over the budget have been going on forever. Bank runs against SVB, are a little more recent. One has next to nothing to do with the other.

Look I realize you're probably genetically challenged so I'll try to say this kindly - if you want the depositors of SVB to get bailed out and get paid in full it's almost certainly going to take getting a law passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. That's why the (entirely fake) debt ceiling argument is pertinent.

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

Just now, ftf82 said:

ELI5. How is this different than the S&L crisis where savings and loans invested long term (mortgages) and borrower (deposits) short term and got whipsawed by rising rates in the late 70s/early 80s? And if so, did SVB's executives not study any of that in grad school?

Most of my career has involved litigation related to failed financial institutions.

This one is different because of the rapid shift in interest rates, making HTM bond portfolios needing big haircuts.  I think that more will be exposed soon.

The 2008 crisis related to both screwed up MBS and a related lack of market for real estate assets.

The 1982-1986 crisis related to a plunge in oil prices and tax law changes.  All of which were exacerbated by a bunch of S&L cowboys that had never done anything beyond a single family home loan trying to get into complex commercial lending.  (And maybe a bit of fraud!)

[TwiceHorn 31433]

7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Most of my career has involved litigation related to failed financial institutions.

This one is different because of the rapid shift in interest rates, making HTM bond portfolios needing big haircuts.  I think that more will be exposed soon.

The 2008 crisis related to both screwed up MBS and a related lack of market for real estate assets.

The 1982-1986 crisis related to a plunge in oil prices and tax law changes.  All of which were exacerbated by a bunch of S&L cowboys that had never done anything beyond a single family home loan trying to get into complex commercial lending.  (And maybe a bit of fraud!)

The gal that taught me a lot about criminal law as a practitioner represented Don Dixon for about 10 years.

The S/L failure era was pretty remarkable and impacted so much different stuff, including the practice of law.

Edited March 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wackawacka 177]

Venture analysis:

• ~67% of deposits easily covered
• 30% hard to market loans
  • would need to be a haircut of 5%-10% for the deposits to be under water

Most expect worse case that deposits take max 10% haircut but believe if not rapid sell off of loan portfolio then deposits will be made 100% whole.

Issue is more timing of selling HTM loan portfolio

[Dbeasy 15039]

2 hours ago, Chopper said:

Tell me you don't know what the SIPC is without telling me.

Tell me you have no clue that SIPC insurance is almost certainly insufficient in a brokerage failure, without telling me.  

[RollLeft 5040]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

A boatload of laptop people are about to find out about earning a living.

Maybe too many self-indulgent wieners...with too much bloody money?

[Bevo 13558]

10 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Look I realize you're probably genetically challenged so I'll try to say this kindly - if you want the depositors of SVB to get bailed out and get paid in full it's almost certainly going to take getting a law passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. That's why the (entirely fake) debt ceiling argument is pertinent.

Why wouldn't the Federal Reserve provide the initial loan and the US Treasury simply purchase SVB preferred shares? Or another way to put it is that a bailout would not require a bill being passed by congress and the president signing said bill into law.

 

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Why wouldn't the Federal Reserve provide the initial loan and the US Treasury simply purchase SVB preferred shares? Or another way to put it is that a bailout would not require a bill being passed by congress and the president signing said bill into law.

 

I don't know the details, but it really seems dumb that there wasn't liquidity provided to the bank earlier this week.

Plenty of assets.  Management arrogance?  The window is almost always open.  We will learn more.

Edited March 12, 2023 by DalTxHornFan

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The FDIC literally incentivizes people to keep money in banks by covering up to 250K

Why should the taxpayer cover ALL deposits? 

Why should banks be allowed to speculate with depositors money if they’re not allowed any downside risk? 

 

The taxpayer isn’t covering anything. The FDIC is unlikely to pay anything, and, it’s funded by…banks. You are a contrarian looking for a fight. In another thread you said the government was more competent than private business, which was the dumbest business post I’ve read in the history of these sites. Here, you’re trying to play populist hero and you’ve no clue what the fuck you’re talking about. 

[wackawacka 177]

The floor has been set per Bloomberg

Quote

HPS, Oaktree Among Firms Pitching Deals for Trapped SVB Deposits

• Some look to buy claims on deposits at 60-75 cents on dollar
• Other lenders in dicussions to provide liquidity at 80 cents

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The gal that taught me a lot about criminal law as a practitioner represented Don Dixon for about 10 years.

The S/L failure era was pretty remarkable and impacted so much different stuff, including the practice of law.

It was a lot of fraud. 

another great book

[Dahobbs 17521]

26 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

The taxpayer isn’t covering anything. The FDIC is unlikely to pay anything, and, it’s funded by…banks. You are a contrarian looking for a fight. In another thread you said the government was more competent than private business, which was the dumbest business post I’ve read in the history of these sites. Here, you’re trying to play populist hero and you’ve no clue what the fuck you’re talking about. 

You're mixing the things he is talking about. A bailout would involve tax payer money. FDIC wouldn't have anything to do with that. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Chopper said:

SVB's appeal to the Silicon Valley VCs was that it was not a "too big too fail" bank. Therefore SVB could engage in certain risks like trading stocks, commodities and derivatives for profit. They also avoided stringent oversight that would have perhaps enabled the Federal Reserve to catch their death spiral before the run on SVB happened on Friday, thanks to (edit: the political muscle of) those same VC firms. SVB's ability to engage in certain investments is what eventually led to their demise. But it's also what gave them inroads in Silicon Valley that larger banks wouldn't have been able to pull off. Finding a buyer for a bank with the balance sheet of SVB and a clientele who don't particularly want to do business with a traditional bank (see SVB, see Crypto) will be a challenge. Especially because the bank's the Federal Reserve hold the most leverage over are precisely the TBTF banks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They weren’t engaging in risky investments. Not at all. And the Fed is not the primary regulator for national banks. It’d be the OCC.   Bad post. 

[Parliament 14225]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

 

On a serious note, what's going to happen to all these bullshit tech companies that have been floating on venture capital for years and never making a profit in the next few months?

Edited March 12, 2023 by Parliament

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're mixing the things he is talking about. A bailout would involve tax payer money. FDIC wouldn't have anything to do with that. 

Nobody is talking about a bailout. Not even Ackman. Arranging a buyer isn’t a bailout. 

[Incredulity 11643]

What about Akerman though?

[YGIFS 19449]

Is this the part where we claim that the FDIC is part of the Dept. of Treasury?  

The close to c-level execs in Austin left SVB two years ago when they saw the signs.  Handful of them left to the exact same mezz capital firm.  Big fucking red flag.  

This will get much more weird before it gets normal.  

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

Is this the part where we claim that the FDIC is part of the Dept. of Treasury?  

The close to c-level execs in Austin left SVB two years ago when they saw the signs.  Handful of them left to the exact same mezz capital firm.  Big fucking red flag.  

This will get much more weird before it gets normal.  

Don't know any details, but I would bet that you know things.