3 ms·

You got it backwards. They became insolvent due to a bank run. Based on false speculation that they couldn’t liquidate their treasuries. Which the government th

You got it backwards. They became insolvent due to a bank run. Based on false speculation that they couldn’t liquidate their treasuries. Which the government then bought back 1:1. So basically Peter Theil caused a run on a bank for no reason other than he got people panicked about their tbill risk ladder. Which by the way want as bad as Bank Of Americas right now.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Didn't meant to imply an ordering of events when I posted that. Makes no difference either way. They still suffered a bank run and still ended up insolvent to the point the government had to step in and bail them out with taxpayer money.
- schemescape 3y ago
  Member banks made depositors whole, not tax payers…
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Banks pay the FDIC for insurance. That would be true if only insured deposits were made whole. That's not what happened though. > On March 12, 2023, a joint statement was issued by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg > stating that all depositors at SVB would be fully protected and would have access to both insured and uninsured deposits > Regulatory filings from December 2022 estimated that more than 85% of deposits were uninsured. Where'd that come from? Surely not the government?
    - schemescape 3y ago
      From member banks: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone... > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer. > Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. Edit: apologies, I should have included this link and blurb in my original comment.
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        You're Both arguing about the wrong thing. SVB never was insolvent, all account holders were made whole with available assets. Whole thing was a farce

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Didn't meant to imply an ordering of events when I posted that. Makes no difference either way. They still suffered a bank run and still ended up insolvent to the point the government had to step in and bail them out with taxpayer money.

schemescape 3y ago
Member banks made depositors whole, not tax payers…
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Banks pay the FDIC for insurance. That would be true if only insured deposits were made whole. That's not what happened though. > On March 12, 2023, a joint statement was issued by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg > stating that all depositors at SVB would be fully protected and would have access to both insured and uninsured deposits > Regulatory filings from December 2022 estimated that more than 85% of deposits were uninsured. Where'd that come from? Surely not the government?
  - schemescape 3y ago
    From member banks: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone... > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer. > Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. Edit: apologies, I should have included this link and blurb in my original comment.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      You're Both arguing about the wrong thing. SVB never was insolvent, all account holders were made whole with available assets. Whole thing was a farce