5 ms·
Well one way to do this would be to regulate banks more, like we used to: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-signs-bank-bill-rolling-back-some-dodd-frank-re
by grey-area 4y ago
Well one way to do this would be to regulate banks more, like we used to:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-signs-bank-bill-rolling-back-some-dodd-frank-regulations.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-signs-bank-bill-rollin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation
- Donald 4y agoThis isn’t necessarily a Glass–Steagall issue as SVB was primarily in government bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
- junofan 4y agoYou’re saying SVB should’ve been designated “too big to fail?”
- DANmode 4y agoOther way around.
- lmm 4y agoWell, apparently they are too big to fail, given that the FDIC is covering them. So they should've been subject to the extra capital requirements that too big to fail banks have.
- grey-area 4y agoShould have had more regulation - more stringent reporting and capital requirements (easy to say in retrospect, but they were covered by laws repealed in 2018). It should not be possible for a consumer bank to get into this sort of state so that they are so far from being able to return customer funds.