4 ms·
It's possible the bank is only a "little bit" insolvent. Is it not possible that the difference can be made up by wiping out shareholders and giving unsecured b
by ahepp 4y ago
It's possible the bank is only a "little bit" insolvent. Is it not possible that the difference can be made up by wiping out shareholders and giving unsecured bondholders a haircut?
Per Robert Armstrong of FT: https://www.ft.com/content/9ee5edda-a038-4992-863f-242bd69c8b79 https://www.ft.com/content/9ee5edda-a038-4992-863f-242bd69c8...
https://archive.is/OQdR7/43e461dad99a58217efdfde3878ee6b56ccd826e.avif https://archive.is/OQdR7/43e461dad99a58217efdfde3878ee6b56cc...
It looks as though SVB may be "only $5 billion" short on its uninsured deposits, with $22 billion in other creditors
- tankerkiller 4y ago> Is it not possible that the difference can be made up by wiping out shareholders In the US it's illegal to do anything that would be "bad" for shareholders. It's quite literally the law that CEOs must return a profit for shareholders (or attempt to). The FDIC however has no such requirements, so while the bank itself can't wipe out shareholders, the FDIC can do it without care. Publicly traded companies will ALWAYS put shareholders above anyone else. It's the primary reason I'm very much against banks being publicly held. Just as I feel it's immoral for healthcare both insurance, pharma, and hospitals to be publicly traded entities.