3 ms·

>banks holding securities that they are required to hold by law Not an expert in this area but when distilling everything I understand about this topic, it see

• zamnos 4y ago
  That's a bit like saying having a door with a lock on your house is a conspiracy to get you to spend money with the door and lock industry. If you squint real hard that kinda sorta looks true, but it ignores the very real protection having a door with a lock on the front of your house actually gets you. Forcing banks to have X amount of reserves in a "safe" investment vehicle should protect them from exactly this kind of problem. The fact that it didn't in this case will be a case study for years to come, and will effect change in FDIC's requirements.
  • ashwagary 4y ago
    Points taken. >this case will be a case study for years to come, and will effect change in FDIC's requirements. I'm only at the position where I see this conspiracy without squinting because I remember the last time this happened, responsible solvent small banks were, thanks to regulation, pushed under or taken over by the larger irresponsible banks. I have a feeling the environment (requiring malinvestment followed by rapid rate raises) is set so that the next set of regulations will do the same and further kill smaller banks. It doesnt seem like a side effect but rather the intent of the chaos that a few large banks guide or are privy to (through lobbyists, fed insiders, etc...) before it occurs.