23 ms·
That is ok as long everyone plays by the same rules. The problem I have specifically is the fact they are making a "special exception" for Silicon Valley bank,
by doodlesdev 4y ago
That is ok as long everyone plays by the same rules. The problem I have specifically is the fact they are making a "special exception" for Silicon Valley bank, but haven't done for other bank collapses. This case of course had the potential to generate contagion, but if that's a thing that happens too often, then there is a systemic issue with how banks are regulated in the United States. I should note this is my point of view as an outsider. Outside the United States issues such as the one we are discussing simply aren't a thing because banks are held to much larger scrutiny, and thus spending depositors money into MBS is not really a thing.
Again, regardless of your political stance or economical, I recommend you read the linked Forbes article about the "Reform Act" I linked to previously [0].
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2023/03/12/how-trumps-deregulation-sowed-the-seeds-for-silicon-valley-banks-demise/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2023/0...
- tracker1 4y agoI'm inside the US and generally agree. Those that had deposits over 250k should be prepared to lose the estimated ~10% or so... as for the shareholders, they should be prepared to lose all... and the executives and board members who drew fat bonuses or sold stock in the past few months should see it clawed back and be held personally liable for the losses, and if that bankrupts them, so be it. That also doesn't count possible insider trading for recent stock sales.