3 ms·
> with the common man absorbing the losses. Most of your comment seemed reasonable, if a tad speculative given a lack of insider knowledge. But the last part f
by chris_va 4y ago
> with the common man absorbing the losses.
Most of your comment seemed reasonable, if a tad speculative given a lack of insider knowledge. But the last part feels like unnecessarily searching for a class warfare argument.
To date, said execs have lost their equity, and liabilities have been transferred. It remains to be seen if any more losses will be absorbed, and by whom and how much.
A counter argument is that a bunch of bank runs will destroy the "common man" and small businesses a lot more than folks parking money in hedge funds. The FDIC insurance pool works fine for a small number of regional banks, but it really is not that large.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y agoGambles with customer funds -> looses -> passes losses to be bailed out through opaque means. This is really not that different than FTX, except it was legal. The current argument is they were incompetent and fell into some bad bets, this is the same argument Sam Bankman Fried tried to argue. Its all a facade
- chris_va 4y ago"passes losses to be bailed out through opaque means" isn't at all correct. Comparing SBF to to buying treasury bonds is somewhat laughable... let's focus on what actually happened instead.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y agoThats another misconception, there were mortgage backed securities and VC loans in their portfolio. The idea that this was purely about treasuries is another attempt at passing off the buck.