SVB - CAO đŸ˜³

  • Thread starter Deleted member 28227
  • Start date
Might want to revisit this gem from 2018. There is constant whining in Congress that the regulations on banks (particular small, community banks) are too high. Let’s see if anyone changes their tune.

How about the people charged with oversight, actually do their job?
Here's the shit they are focused on.....
 
Last edited:
As long as we dont all try to withdraw our money at once, most banks will be fine. Its not like they just hold onto it all, and you would think thats common knowledge. What scares me is a lot of people I know dont understand this basic concept.
 
As long as we dont all try to withdraw our money at once, most banks will be fine. Its not like they just hold onto it all, and you would think thats common knowledge. What scares me is a lot of people I know dont understand this basic concept.
Most that don't understand, don't have $250,000 in deposits either.
 
How about the people charged with oversight, actually do their job?
Here's the shit they are focused on.....
I have said that exact thing as well. But could you imagine the shitshow on Capital Hill if a regulator told a bank they held too many 10yr Treasuries?

Fed expanding discount window should fix liquidity problems, but it won’t stop customers from being nervous.
 
The problem I see going forward, is all the too big to fail banks that everyone is racing to transfer their money into, also have to put that new money to work. I don't see a lot of "safe" lending opportunities out there right now. And the smaller banks that are losing depositors, see how long they last.
The fundamental problem is that banks don't work without some type of leverage. There is no viable model where a bank takes your deposits and then holds them 100% so you can fully withdraw at any time. That would be "rent_secure_matress.com". They would have to charge very large fees to all depositors to essentially be a cash security firm, not a bank.

Once you accept that a bank must take the deposit funds and invest them somewhere the problem exists. Regulators can set ratios and asset category mixes, but as have learned, there is no zero-risk instantly liquid asset. As such every bank is subject to a run. The only actual solution is to have sufficient regulations and insurance to convince depositors to never rush like lemmings (sorry @BrentD) to pull their money out at the same time. I think the real lesson of SVB is that we probably have to have an insurance framework for all funds (not the $250k cap), a robust regulatory framework, and strong disincentives (punishments) for bank managers who stray from the framework.

I hear big European banks are starting to fail now. Dominoes starting to fall. Going to get ugly quick.
Nahh, 2008 and the Pandemic have taught central bankers that since money is now a mathematical fiction they can just "create" as much as they need to meet depositor needs. And that is probably a lot less than you would guess because SVB and the like aren't actually losing tens of billions - they are just not sufficiently liquid. But modern money is infinitely liquid since it only takes the press of a key to generate.
 
Last edited:
MTG watching her leverage over the debt ceiling disappear

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/xT9KViqf7pj34lvmY8" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="
">via GIPHY</a></p>
This was my very first thought when I heard the SVB news. Debt ceiling games at this point would be suicide. But I wouldn't put anything past the dumbest 5 congress members of each party.
 
Last edited:
Most that don't understand, don't have $250,000 in deposits either.
Its not the 1% or less with $250k in deposits that I worry about, but maybe we should. In SVB’s case, many people with way over the $250k mark were the ones trying to withdraw in a run. But millions of people with just a thousand bucks or so all withdrawing at once could collapse all the banks. Thats a lot of money that adds up quickly. It is literally what happened in 1929.
 
The only actual solution is to have sufficient regulations and insurance to convince depositors to never rush like lemmings (sorry @BrentD) to pull their money out at the same time.

Pickin' on my guys again, eh @VikingsGuy ? :) :)

Let's say more like "swarm like fire ants to roadkill" instead. No entomologists here, I hope... :)

Now, go out and pet a lemming or two today and make nice with them.... :)

BTW, ever seen a lemming in Minnesota? You got 'em.
 
Its not the 1% or less with $250k in deposits that I worry about, but maybe we should. In SVB’s case, many people with way over the $250k mark were the ones trying to withdraw in a run. But millions of people with just a thousand bucks or so all withdrawing at once could collapse all the banks. Thats a lot of money that adds up quickly. It is literally what happened in 1929.
I'm buying stocks in shovel and coffee makers and . They will need to put that money somewhere and burying a coffee can in the back yard would seem like a great idea.
 
Its not the 1% or less with $250k in deposits that I worry about, but maybe we should. In SVB’s case, many people with way over the $250k mark were the ones trying to withdraw in a run. But millions of people with just a thousand bucks or so all withdrawing at once could collapse all the banks. Thats a lot of money that adds up quickly. It is literally what happened in 1929.
I am not worried about a 1-percenter and their $250K, rather it is the small to mid-sized businesses that have >$250k payrolls they can't meet and the working class folks not getting paychecks on Friday. 90% of bailing out of the "rich" is really making sure the sh*t flowing down hill to everybody else isn't fatal - see, Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
Its not the 1% or less with $250k in deposits that I worry about, but maybe we should. In SVB’s case, many people with way over the $250k mark were the ones trying to withdraw in a run. But millions of people with just a thousand bucks or so all withdrawing at once could collapse all the banks. Thats a lot of money that adds up quickly. It is literally what happened in 1929.
Which is the reasoning by backing SVB 100%. People are panicky creatures, the fed has to go hard right out the gate.
 
@VikingsGuy Good point on the businesses not being able to pay too. Just found out a handful of my clients had payroll accounts at SVB. Not good…. That just compounds my worries on individuals pulling all their money out too. No paychecks AND no money to withdraw?? Anarchy. I dont trust a government with $30 trillion in debt to bail anything out.

@wllm Yes, that and our governor has a lot of money tied up in SVB through his wineries. Found out SVB not only had large investment in tech startups, but also held many accounts with wineries in the Napa area. A lot of money was at stake for some very well off people, but **it does flow downhill, a little.
 
Just waiting for the frost to go out...
My new frost-proof business plan. Buy a large mattress and stick it in my locked firearms area. You send me all your cash and I will stuff it in my mattress and have my two labs guard it. When you want it back I will send it all minus $100 processing fee. What could go wrong? #securemattress.com
 
Last edited:
I am not worried about a 1-percenter and their $250K, rather it is the small to mid-sized businesses that have >$250k payrolls they can't meet and the working class folks not getting paychecks on Friday. 90% of bailing out of the "rich" is really making sure the sh*t flowing down hill to everybody else isn't fatal - see, Great Depression.
This is perhaps the only time that "trickle down" economics works.
 
Back
Top