3 ms·

You have the right sentiment but the wrong conclusion. It was clear after the large bailouts of 2008 that left to their own demise banks would do anything for a

You have the right sentiment but the wrong conclusion. It was clear after the large bailouts of 2008 that left to their own demise banks would do anything for a bit more money and were not trustworthy actors. That’s an old conclusion by the way. The same one was reached in the 1930s. The logical conclusion to these bailouts was that the regulatory environment surrounding banking was plain bad which was unsurprising because successive neoliberal governments had torn down most of it. The conclusion to this one is that it still is and what was done in 2010 (Dodd-Frank) is a joke and clearly insuffisant. Something everyone knew. You want to be mad at someone? Start with your government.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> conclusion to this one is that it still is and what was done in 2010 (Dodd-Frank) is a joke and clearly insuffisant SVB was exempted from much of Dodd-Frank and Basel III.
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
You can't regulate away bad incentives which come from the privileges that other regulations grant. We're only in this mess because banks have excessive privileges. These privileges lead to misaligned incentives. No amount of regulation can realign the incentives back. Only revoking their privileges. Their privileges include being the only entities able to deal with the Fed and hold deposits . Let people bank directly at the Fed. Or with crypto. But banks don't deserve a special privilege of being the only way people can hold money. Furthermore, loans should not be transferable. Now banks will actually have to price loans correctly. And putting your money in a bank would be a choice they will have to tempt you with, by actually giving real interest rates. And you won't have misaligned incentives, because there is no captive audience. Giving your money to the bank would be a risk you're doing willingly. A risk they will pay you for taking instead of robbing from you by their regulatory privileges.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  You are confusing different things. I also agree that banks shouldn’t be the sole intermediating agents for money creation but this has absolutely nothing to do with retail banking. Who exactly is the captive audience in retail banking? Last time I checked there was plenty of choice there. Anyway, SVB clearly is a failure of risk management which is a failure of the regulatory environment.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> conclusion to this one is that it still is and what was done in 2010 (Dodd-Frank) is a joke and clearly insuffisant SVB was exempted from much of Dodd-Frank and Basel III.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago

You can't regulate away bad incentives which come from the privileges that other regulations grant. We're only in this mess because banks have excessive privileges. These privileges lead to misaligned incentives. No amount of regulation can realign the incentives back. Only revoking their privileges. Their privileges include being the only entities able to deal with the Fed and hold deposits . Let people bank directly at the Fed. Or with crypto. But banks don't deserve a special privilege of being the only way people can hold money. Furthermore, loans should not be transferable. Now banks will actually have to price loans correctly. And putting your money in a bank would be a choice they will have to tempt you with, by actually giving real interest rates. And you won't have misaligned incentives, because there is no captive audience. Giving your money to the bank would be a risk you're doing willingly. A risk they will pay you for taking instead of robbing from you by their regulatory privileges.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
You are confusing different things. I also agree that banks shouldn’t be the sole intermediating agents for money creation but this has absolutely nothing to do with retail banking. Who exactly is the captive audience in retail banking? Last time I checked there was plenty of choice there. Anyway, SVB clearly is a failure of risk management which is a failure of the regulatory environment.