SVB Failed! Silicon Valley Bank.

[Fordup]

Good thing is oil is below $70. $1.99 gas soon

Sponsored

 

[CB750F]

If I were to delve into making political party opinions - I'd have to agree that a past dem admin was "soft" on the financial sector - basically no one was held accountable for the mortgage debacle.

Don't be fooled by parties. Look when Obama came in, I had hope, after 8 yrs of baby Bush with unfunded wars... So what changed with Obama? Nothing really, went from Greenspan, Bernake, Yellen & Powel. Their all the same, when you say follow the $ your absolutely right, the party in power makes no difference.

 

[AzScorpion]

This article talks about the program used to to pay out funds when they're over the FDIC insurance. it also try's to make you believe that NO taxpayer money will be involved. Call me crazy but I don't believe a word of this. They say the banks will repay this through quarterly assessments on insured banks and, to a lesser extent, through interest earned on investments and assets recovered through liquidations.I'm guessing we'll see a whole bunch of fees increase now and a lotto that money will come through us, the taxpayer having to pay these fees. I can see Doc fees, filing fees and all sorts of fees increasing to help pay this back. These banks have shareholders to account for which we all know money if way more important than we are.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...sed-to-bail-out-svb-depositors-122418679.html

The exception, known as the Systematic Risk Exemption(SRE), is a caveat in the 1991 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA), a law that requires that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC) impose the “least cost” on taxpayers when it uses its Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) to wind down failed banks.

The law — which limits the FDIC's power to guarantee deposits — emphasizes that the agency must choose the least costly method, even if doing so inflicts losses on a failed bank's uninsured depositors, creditors, and shareholders. In theory, the statute incentivizes government officials to pay out no more than the act requires.

“No losses will be borne by the taxpayers,” the president told reporters. “Instead the money will come from the fees the banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).”?

While the DIF — the fund that pays out depositor losses — is primarily funded through quarterly assessments on insured banks and, to a lesser extent, through interest earned on investments and assets recovered through liquidations, critics say that because the fund is ultimately backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, taxpayers are taking on risk when the government chooses to make uninsured depositors whole. The FDIC is also authorized to tap a federal line of credit if DIF funds fall short.

According to Ricks, taxpayers would be on the hook only if the FDIC became insolvent, which happened following the 1980s savings and loan crisis that cost taxpayers around $125 billion and gave rise to the FDICIA.

 

[dtech]

Don't be fooled by parties. Look when Obama came in, I had hope, after 8 yrs of baby Bush with unfunded wars... So what changed with Obama? Nothing really, went from Greenspan, Bernake, Yellen & Powel. Their all the same, when you say follow the $ your absolutely right, the party in power makes no difference.

Yes and the finger pointing and accusations continue and serves to obfuscate the real issues by polarizing people, politicians and the media have become masters of this , serving their own interests irrespective of their political affiliation.

As folks point out the real issue is greed and how money controls the political process. Follow the money.

And some thought EVs were the only issue facing the country, lol

 

[Nellieg]

If I were to delve into making political party opinions - I'd have to agree that a past dem admin was "soft" on the financial sector - basically no one was held accountable for the mortgage debacle.

Just asking on how one is related to other... Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Not making a finger point in any way other than to ask for information. Follow the money, who benefits, how is it paid for are all relevant questions. Questions that should be asked. It's easy and fashionable to blame politics. Just not clear on how it's relevant in svb's case where they had to under sell billions in bonds for a loss to cover. As I've read, their reliance on bonds seems to have not been well suited to interest rate increases. The regulations in this case would not have prevented the failure had they been applied. I am not a banking or finance person, just a person who wants answers without blame. If collectively we elect people who corruptly benefit from things we need to ask how this happens. Just saying there is a tendency to blame the people we elect when we elected them in the first place.

 

[AzScorpion]

Good thing is oil is below $70. $1.99 gas soon

Unfortunately by the time we see this trickle to the pumps all this will be forgotten and the price will shoot back up to $4.00+/gal. ?

 

[dtech]

This article talks about the program used to to pay out funds when they're over the FDIC insurance. it also try's to make you believe that NO taxpayer money will be involved. Call me crazy but I don't believe a word of this. They say the banks will repay this through quarterly assessments on insured banks and, to a lesser extent, through interest earned on investments and assets recovered through liquidations.I'm guessing we'll see a whole bunch of fees increase now and a lotto that money will come through us, the taxpayer having to pay these fees. I can see Doc fees, filing fees and all sorts of fees increasing to help pay this back. These banks have shareholders to account for which we all know money if way more important than we are.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...sed-to-bail-out-svb-depositors-122418679.html

In a massive meltdown and run on the banks IIRC all the FDIC protections goes out the door, we all lose. This may have occurred in Greece when the gov did take complete control of the banks.

 

[dtech]

Just asking on how one is related to other... Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Not making a finger point in any way other than to ask for information. Follow the money, who benefits, how is it paid for are all relevant questions. Questions that should be asked. It's easy and fashionable to blame politics. Just not clear on how it's relevant in svb's case where they had to under sell billions in bonds for a loss to cover. As I've read, their reliance on bonds seems to have not been well suited to interest rate increases. The regulations in this case would not have prevented the failure had they been applied. I am not a banking or finance person, just a person who wants answers without blame. If collectively we elect people who corruptly benefit from things we need to ask how this happens. Just saying there is a tendency to blame the people we elect when we elected them in the first place.

It's such a convoluted web - the dodd-frank thing I used was an example of finger pointing - serving to distract and attempt to exonerate one party from the other, thanks for point out that Barney Frank is on the board of SVB . Without lobbying I don't think Dodd-Frank would have been changed. But in the big picture I'm of the opinion that US monetary policy for many decades is at fault and I contend much of that comes from ever growing reliance on debt and gov bailouts.
I've always found it interesting that the US accuses China of currency manipulation while we just have printed money and kept interests rates unreasonably low. Historically that almost always cause bubbles and inflationary spikes.

 

[Nellieg]

It's such a convoluted web - the dodd-frank thing I used was an example of finger pointing - serving to distract and attempt to exonerate one party from the other, thanks for point out that Barney Frank is on the board of SVB . Without lobbying I don't think Dodd-Frank would have been changed. But in the big picture I'm of the opinion that US monetary policy for many decades is at fault and I contend much of that comes from ever growing reliance on debt and gov bailouts.
I've always found it interesting that the US accuses China of currency manipulation while we just have printed money and kept interests rates unreasonably low. Historically that almost always cause bubbles and inflationary spikes.

In my opinion the politics is the finger pointing to look at blame (misdirected or not) that influences heavily on the election process. It distracts from the answers. No one wants the stinky finger on them. What is of concern is why are we changing policy for this bank to protect investments over an amount where it seems investors are coming from a small segment of our society who just happen to have a ton of money and they heavily donate in our political processes ... The government doesn't make money so where does the money for them come from, who pays and so forth. Should this bank get a bailout because if they don't what else happens downstream and so forth... If the S in SVB were Shenandoah would it get the same treatment? It's a huge mess with a ton of ethics issues mixed in.

 

[underwhelmed]

Now they can push for their own digital currency. That's not good at all. They would be able to control what the peasants purchase and how much.

At a certain point I think it’s best for us old dudes to just go out in a blaze of glory…

This article talks about the program used to to pay out funds when they're over the FDIC insurance. it also try's to make you believe that NO taxpayer money will be involved.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...sed-to-bail-out-svb-depositors-122418679.html

LOL! No taxpayer $s...bahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[AzScorpion]

LOL! No taxpayer $s...bahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Trust me I had a hard time typing this without LMAO too! ??

 

[dtech]

In my opinion the politics is the finger pointing to look at blame (misdirected or not) that influences heavily on the election process. It distracts from the answers. No one wants the stinky finger on them. What is of concern is why are we changing policy for this bank to protect investments over an amount where it seems investors are coming from a small segment of our society who just happen to have a ton of money and they heavily donate in our political processes ... The government doesn't make money so where does the money for them come from, who pays and so forth. Should this bank get a bailout because if they don't what else happens downstream and so forth... If the S in SVB were Shenandoah would it get the same treatment? It's a huge mess with a ton of ethics issues mixed in.

Yes and the fact that Frank was on the board of SVB may have had little bearing on anything, some companies are known for having boards that basically rubber stamp whatever the CEO wants, they are on the board as a name to attract investors and they are content to collect their pay, I have no idea if this was the case with Frank and SVB - but I see he is now blaming crypto for the collapse.

Sonny and Cher song - and the beat goes on, la di da, la di day or something like that.

 

[CB750F]

Good thing is oil is below $70. $1.99 gas soon

WTI is 65$ now, this is bad news.

 

[Fordup]

WTI is 65$ now, this is bad news.

I think the parking lot full of vehicles at my credit union is actually worse news. Never see more then 2 or 3 cars in there midweek.

 

[dtech]

WTI is 65$ now, this is bad news.

What about Ford stock - down 4% are they dabbling in crypto - no wait even worse they are heavily invested in EVs. I see some congressmen, notably Rubio is trying to block the CATL deal.

Sponsored