4 ms·

With reps like this doesn't seem you really need to lobby that hard. I’m working with my CA colleagues to address the Silicon Valley Bank crisis. We must make

• adra 4y ago
  Yeah, I mean take your funds and put them under your mattress, because like where else is it safer? It totally sucks that your clients chose to put your funds in a highly geographically and industry central bank that failed for understandable reasons. We also don't bail out the West Texas Bank for oil barons either when their bank fails.
• jghn 4y ago
  > We must make sure all deposits exceeding the FDIC $250k limit are honored Why? Depositors know what the insurance limit is. One could choose to not leave more than 250K in a bank, and/or they could choose to find a way to hedge their risk.
  • djbusby 4y ago
    Socialism for the wealthy. Rugged capitalism for the rest.
  • notch898a 4y ago
    Hey if you don't want the return on your deposits spent on fraudulently represented "insurance" which of course is paid to the same people (government) demanding FDIC/NCUA insurance before chartering a retail bank, simply keep your money under a mattress. You see you don't have to pay the tax, it's an insurance because it's an optional thing and instead you can choose to have the money stolen by cops by the side of the road in "civil asset forfeiture." Of course if anybody else took your money representing it as bailing out everyone under 250k, but actually was fraudulently representing it and you found out you were forced to pay "insurance" to bail out accounts over 250k, well then we'd just call it insurance fraud.
    • jghn 4y ago
      I didn't say there were good options for people wanting to deposit more than 250K. But people claiming that those who wound up in this situation couldn't possibly have foreseen the problems are mistaken. There's a reason why I don't put all of my money in a single bank account, why can't these companies do the same? But really, this is obscuring the point. The people screaming "bailout" aren't the unfortunate people who work for a company who uses Rippling. No it's the person who normally yells "free market!".
      • notch898a 4y ago
        100% agree with you. Sweep accounts or possibly some form of private insurance?
  • rocqua 4y ago
    If people stop trusting banks, a lot of friction gets added to the financial system. People stop worrying about creating value and start worrying about storing value. Short term, people will consider taking out their deposits, which might trigger more bankruns. That might truly ruin our financial system and drop us into a recession.
    • notch898a 4y ago
      If aliens came to earth I wonder if they'd truly see much difference in value creation between dollars stored in a private bank and dollars stored in a pile of cash. Either way the same non-financial goods and services are on the market.
      • rocqua 4y ago
        Piles of cash are risky! They can be stolen, rot, burned, forgotten, etc. Besides, they are horribly inconvenient. Paying your hosting bill in cash would suck. Paying your salaries in cash would be a nightmare! Cash has massive friction. And a significant risk profile.
        • salawat 4y ago
          ...And yet, there is a certain security in that instead of someone getting one number and taking over or locking out your account, they first have to physically find your money. People underestimate the power of not having assets somewhere they can be frozen by a third-party. Risk is never destroyed. It's just changed from form to form...
          • baq 4y ago
            Escobar’s accountants had to write off a percent or so a year because rats ate it.
            • salawat 4y ago
              Shoulda invested in better exterminators. Money would have gone further.
• spaceman_2020 4y ago
  That pretty much implies ALL deposits are insured, not just up to 250k. Which can’t be true because there really isn’t that much money to backstop all deposits across all banks.
• gadders 4y ago
  How much do you stand to lose?