6 ms·

The average depositor does not feel like someone with over 250k in the bank. No one will save those people if they hit a difficult situation like this. That sai

by pylua 4y ago

The average depositor does not feel like someone with over 250k in the bank. No one will save those people if they hit a difficult situation like this. That said, I personally do not have an opinion on the svb matter, just stating what I feel the sentiment to be.

nine_zeros 4y ago
> The average depositor does not feel like someone with over 250k in the bank. The average depositor might not have $250k in the bank but the average small business does? These small businesses pay their employees from those deposits. Where do people think payroll comes from?
- pylua 4y ago
  It should be spread out in order to mitigate risks like this.
  - nine_zeros 4y ago
    > It should be spread out in order to mitigate risks like this. Even after that, companies could still need the money to make payroll literally on March 15. How would they know which of their spread out accounts will fail tomorrow? Think about your own accounts. You are paying for your own car loan from one account. Imagine it gets frozen tomorrow. There are 2 scenarios: First, you miss the first few payments and your car gets repossessed. Isn't it rather unfair that you had the money but your bank fucked up so your car got repossessed? Second, you switch your bank for loan payments but that you were already using the other account for mortgage payments. Now your deposits are leaving faster than your savings are building. Why should you, the depositor, be put in this precarious situation - if the failure was from the bank management? A bank failure cannot be prepared for in the best of times, for a simple individual. And you are asking large companies with accounts payables and payrolls to switch asap before market opens on Monday and these companies get crushed - for not fault of their own? Imo, the outcome of saving no-fault depositors but not saving the bad management is more than fair.
    - pylua 4y ago
      I'm not saying that the rules are reasonable -- I am just saying that is how it works. You don't get to change the rules of the game even if you have a good argument, which is what is essentially happening now. At the end of the day, YOU are responsible for your money and the bank you entrust it to -- no one else. YOU are responsible for putting your money in the bank that failed -- no one else. Even more so -- you are responsible for putting money in over the insured limit. You took that risk. It is hard to have sympathy for a company like Roku in this situation. I also imagine that if some of these massive deposits were spread out it would create for a healthier environment where smaller banks could compete better. Fair? Where will the money come from -- the tax payers? Other depositors ? That is not a fair outcome.

by pylua 4y ago

nine_zeros 4y ago

> The average depositor does not feel like someone with over 250k in the bank. The average depositor might not have $250k in the bank but the average small business does? These small businesses pay their employees from those deposits. Where do people think payroll comes from?

pylua 4y ago
It should be spread out in order to mitigate risks like this.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  > It should be spread out in order to mitigate risks like this. Even after that, companies could still need the money to make payroll literally on March 15. How would they know which of their spread out accounts will fail tomorrow? Think about your own accounts. You are paying for your own car loan from one account. Imagine it gets frozen tomorrow. There are 2 scenarios: First, you miss the first few payments and your car gets repossessed. Isn't it rather unfair that you had the money but your bank fucked up so your car got repossessed? Second, you switch your bank for loan payments but that you were already using the other account for mortgage payments. Now your deposits are leaving faster than your savings are building. Why should you, the depositor, be put in this precarious situation - if the failure was from the bank management? A bank failure cannot be prepared for in the best of times, for a simple individual. And you are asking large companies with accounts payables and payrolls to switch asap before market opens on Monday and these companies get crushed - for not fault of their own? Imo, the outcome of saving no-fault depositors but not saving the bad management is more than fair.
  - pylua 4y ago
    I'm not saying that the rules are reasonable -- I am just saying that is how it works. You don't get to change the rules of the game even if you have a good argument, which is what is essentially happening now. At the end of the day, YOU are responsible for your money and the bank you entrust it to -- no one else. YOU are responsible for putting your money in the bank that failed -- no one else. Even more so -- you are responsible for putting money in over the insured limit. You took that risk. It is hard to have sympathy for a company like Roku in this situation. I also imagine that if some of these massive deposits were spread out it would create for a healthier environment where smaller banks could compete better. Fair? Where will the money come from -- the tax payers? Other depositors ? That is not a fair outcome.