5 ms·

Okay? I’m trying to buy my first home, who’s going to give me a home? Another bank is getting a bailout and they have the gaul to call it not-a-bailout bailout?

• maxerickson 4y ago
  It's the customers of the bank that are benefiting from the government action, not the bank. The bank has now ceased to exist. If you want to rant against the customers of a bad bank getting bailed out, that's fine, but the bank wasn't bailed out, it was wiped out. The new bank is the owner of the old banks assets and responsible for the old banks debts. The owners of the old bank have nothing to do with the operations of the new bank.
  • nostrebored 4y ago
    No the customers of the bank will also have to deal with the clown-world implications of continued bailouts for poor allocation of resources. Banks will continue to be able to make horrendous decisions and not have any fractional reserve requirements. Executives will continue to get absurd performance benefits until losses are realized. Depositors won’t have to care that the institution where they dump millions of dollars is run by someone doing their best financial John Wayne Gacy impersonation. And we’ll all suffer because institutionally these horrendous investments are backstopped. Please just let one of these banks fail. A few more will. Lots more should. And then maybe we’ll see them act with any sort of prudence.
    • astrange 4y ago
      Three banks failed in the last week. But it's not good for depositors to take a haircut because of that. We can work it out without anyone having to pay for it except the banks' executives and shareholders.
    • maxerickson 4y ago
      The bank did fail? What the hell else are they supposed to do with the assets that are left in the bank? Giving them to the people the bank owed money makes a lot more sense than lighting them on fire or whatever. Do people think that the FDIC/government funds end up being a significant portion of the money that goes to the depositors or something?
    • cmurf 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you imagine FDIC does with the bank's seized assets. But let's say you think they should be vanished some reason, and good for nothing. Hundreds of thousands of employees from tens of thousands of small businesses aren't getting paid salaries for the last 1-3 weeks. And aren't getting paid this week. And very likely are out of a job. Same for those businesses vendors and subcontractors. Hundreds of thousands left without a health care plan with two weeks notice because premiums will go unpaid and afterall the employer is the true contractor of the plan, if they go out of business because most of their cash deposits were just destroyed. That seems bad. What sort of influence levers do these depositors have over their bank's investment policies either before of after the fact? It seems pointless.
      • anon291 4y ago
        How about we expect FDIC to sell the assets at market value and then expect companies to take the 30 % cut in assets over 250k. No one is suggesting anyone burn svbs assets. Only that we do not print more money to make up the difference between the face value and the market value
        • cmurf 4y ago
          >How about we expect FDIC to sell the assets at market value and then expect companies to take the 30 % cut in assets over 250k. Why should a bank's depositors take haircuts before its bondholders and shareholders? >Only that we do not print more money to make up the difference between the face value and the market value The difference is made up by FDIC special assessment on banks.
• the_optimist 4y ago
  There is no evidence of a “bailout” here or anywhere else in public. Post it when you have it.
• pmorici 4y ago
  "Another bank is getting a bailout" No they are not. The shareholders and bond holders are getting wiped out. It is only the depositors that are being made whole. This is not like 2008 where they loaned cheap money to banks to keep them afloat but allowed the owners to remain.
  • anon291 4y ago
    Except they are exactly loaning cheap money to all the banks that have not yet failed while claiming moral superiority for letting svb fail
• hardstartuper 4y ago
  Wall Street — not taxpayers — will pay for the SVB and Signature deposit relief plans https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/wall-street-not-taxpayers-will-pay-for-the-svb-and-signature-deposit-relief-plans-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/wall-street-not-taxpayers-wi...
  • salawat 4y ago
    They will not. They will pass the cost on to the end consumer. You seem to mosunderstand how finance works. When you're the middleman, you have no problems. Only the consumer does.
    • astrange 4y ago
      Competition between banks reduces prices the same way it always does. The banks that failed in the last week were closer to monopolies than most banks and it doesn't seem like it helped.
• ericb 4y ago
  > Pretty clear who this system serves. A bailout is when they save the bank owners. The SVB owners lost the bank. There's no happy result for them. If you had your deposit for the home in Silicon Valley Bank, it would be serving you. It would probably suck if you saved that up for retirement or a mortgage, and lost it. In that scenario would you be saying how great it is because it showed the government really served you? Bank runs are a real thing that could ruin you wherever you're banking. If the large accounts realize that that smart move is to pull their money every time Peter Thiel yells fire, because they are unprotected, other banks can go under too--maybe yours, or maybe the bank where your company's payroll funds are!
  • astrange 4y ago
    > The SVB owners lost the bank. There's no happy result for them. Some of them did get bonuses that day - of course then they lost their jobs. I'm not sure if there's a mechanism to claw back excess bonuses, but if SVB goes through bankruptcy after this it should be possible.
  • blihp 4y ago
    To many of us, a bailout is whenever the consequences of one's decisions/actions are set aside to avoid the logical negative outcome they would have otherwise experienced. What makes this more galling[1] is the fact that this new platinum FDIC coverage plan doesn't cover everyone at every bank, merely those who are anointed as 'systemic risks' (way to put a new label on 'too big to fail') Then to make it sound like this is all being paid for by all the other benevolent banks is just insulting.[2] [1] Beyond the group primarily benefiting are exactly the group who should well understand something as basic as FDIC coverage limits and supplemental insurance. [2] While it is technically true that the taxpayers will not be directly footing the bill, they neglect to mention that as soon as said taxpayers put on their consumer hats, they will in fact be paying for this in the form of increased fees/decreased interest rates on deposits/increased borrowing interest rates, no matter how slight.
    • ezfe 4y ago
      but the depositors aren't the ones whose actions caused the consequences... (well, you know what I mean). The bank (which took actions) faces the consequences of no longer existing. The customers don't lose their money.