3 ms·
“In fact, it isn’t even clear that depositors were going to be wiped out, absent federal intervention. When SVB was shut down, it still had real assets that wer
by tezthenerd 4y ago
“In fact, it isn’t even clear that depositors were going to be wiped out, absent federal intervention. When SVB was shut down, it still had real assets that were worth money, which can be sold to pay back investors. ”
Would conservatives suggest investors really should be paid back first? Unlikely to be popular.
- LatteLazy 4y agoAre there any "conservatives" who aren't just corporatists? Not that the other side is much better...
- ahepp 4y agoBased on context, I assume "investors" should in fact read "depositors" in the article? It doesn't seem like the author is disputing the traditional order of repayment (depositors, bondholders, stockholders)
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago> Would conservatives suggest investors really should be paid back first? Unlikely to be popular. He's obviously not suggesting that, considering how he goes on to say "when liquidated, SVB has the assets to pay off 95 percent of deposits." There's clear procedures for bankruptcy and equity holders would be on the bottom of the capital stack while depositors would be on the top.