My best bet is Miami , wherever this is large contingency of California refugees There’s an in and out burger I actually like shake shack but in and out is cheaper
Reality's too real for someone, so he has decided to throw in the towel and join basso and tinman in the clown car.
It's not surprising that Fox News lied about the SVB donation to BLM. However, even if the donation was true, it wouldn't have contributed to the bank's failure. Nevertheless, cultural issues can inflame people's emotions and cause them to react without thinking critically.
I think the rhetoric of SVBC is as open as wealthy white conservatives can be on their motivation for making everything into culture wars. They want people to think these economic system failures are a result of culture issues rather than a system that disproportionately benefits them and ****s over everyone else. This is going to cost tax payer money and wealthy people want to make sure that commoners like ATW believe it's the gays and Blacks fault rather than people most benefiting from these systems.
The Fed should always back up payroll operations because individual employees are impacted if they go down. The FDIC had this operation until 2013, when Congress did not extend it due to lobbying by the money market fund industry. Former FDIC Chair Bair is recommending that Congress give the FDIC that power again. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/...e-all-bank-deposits-ex-chief-bair-2023-03-16/ The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp may need to seek temporary guarantees for all uninsured U.S. bank deposits to stem a drain of funds from small and regional U.S. lenders following deposit bailouts for failed banks SVB Financial and Signature Bank, former FDIC chair Sheila Bair said on Wednesday. Bair, who oversaw hundreds of bank closures at the FDIC during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, told Reuters in an interview that the "one-off" deposit guarantees for Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB.O) and Signature (SBNY.O) have left depositors elsewhere fearing for safety and fleeing to larger institutions. "My biggest fear now is that that lack of trust in the banking system takes hold and uninsured deposits start fleeing banks of all sizes to the biggest banks, just making them bigger again," Bair said. "And that otherwise healthy banks get into trouble because their deposit base is unstable and running." If that continues, the FDIC and the U.S. Treasury should seek "streamlined" authority from Congress to guarantee all uninsured deposits and transaction accounts, which handle client company payroll and operations, she said. Under the 2010 financial reform law known as Dodd-Frank, the FDIC was given the authority to lift its deposit cap for all accounts, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, if a "liquidity event" exists that could harm the financial system. Under that provision, the FDIC could lift the cap after Congress voted on the request on an expedited schedule. Such a move would be complicated by a divided Congress. ... Bair said she did not view Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank as systemically important institutions, adding that they could have been resolved through FDIC's normal takeover process, with a "haircut" for uninsured deposits. But a "supermajority" of the Federal Reserve and FDIC boards plus Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and President Joe Biden made the determination that the two banks qualified for systemic risk exceptions, qualifying them for the backstops. Bair said it wasn't "realistic" for similar one-off determinations to be made for other banks, particularly those that fall below the revised "systemically important institutions" threshold of $250 billion in assets. Bair also said she believed that the Federal Reserve should "hit pause" on interest rate hikes to better assess impacts on the financial system as well as the broader economy." ... https://www.reuters.com/article/fin...-senate-procedural-vote-idUSL1E8ND8W320121213 December 13, 2012 A bill to extend a financial crisis-era deposit insurance program on Thursday failed to garner the needed support to overcome a crucial procedural vote in the U.S. Senate. The Transaction Account Guarantee program, which insures checking account deposits above the $250,000 normally covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, is set to expire at the end of the year. The bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid, would have given the program two more years. Bank lobbyists said letting the program end would lead U.S. companies to pull funds from bank accounts and invest elsewhere. Fifty senators voted to waive a procedural challenge to the bill raised by Republican members on Thursday, fewer than the 60 votes needed to move forward with the legislation.
Agree and disagree. The cultural war is almost always shifting, diverting attention from real issues to emotional and charged cultural issues that actually have no tangible impact on anyone's lives when you sit down and think through it. Not taxpayers. This may cost everyone who has a bank account a little more if the FDIC has to backstop funds over 250k (and thus issue a special assessment on banks to restore the FDIC fund). But there is a good chance that there won't be a need to backstop any funds over 250k.
SVB failed because venture capitalist told their companies to make a run on the bank. Any bank would fail, if people withdrew close to 50 percent of the deposits within a few days. SVB's biggest issue is that they didn't diversify beyond venture backed tech companies.
No, they purchased too many (risk free?!) treasuries with customer deposits, which lost value when the Fed raised interest rates. They couldn't sell enough of the devalued treasuries to cover the withdrawal requests when the bank run started. If you are concerned about a run on a bank where you have deposits, you have a fiduciary obligation to withdraw asap. The moral hazard is fractional reserve banking combined with money printing to guarantee deposits. Bitcoin fixes this.
This is all inaccurate, but the bolded is egregious. They sold bonds to fund increased withdrawals from their tech depositors feeling the crunch of a tighter tech market and a higher interest rates. This is the same crunch that caused giants like google, meta and others to slash jobs, some from overhiring and others because of a weakened economy where ad sales have plummeted from tightened belts and silly crypto money drying up. Bond convexity makes it unwise to sell when rates are higher, but keeping the bonds to maturity still turns a profit. Svg couldn't keep them because of the increased deposit withdrawals from their cash starved clients. This continued further into a traditional bank panic through a vicious cycle. Buying more low risk securities as collateral with no intention to sell, trade or rehypothecate was not the cause, Selling at a loss a symptom of weakness and firesales with haircuts are generally a desperate move of last resort. Writing down losses from failed cypto ventures (scams) definitely accelerated the demise of banks like silvergate. All this talk of moral hazard ignores that the fdic is a moral hazard of sorts for customers. But without the FDIC we'd still live in the age of bank panics over gold redemptions or sleeping with money under our matresses. Obviously both situations are unpleasant so I'd rather keep banks smaller and simpler with more regulatory muscle to ramp up "innovation" than whatever toilet paper policies we get generally under republican presidencies.
That's exactly what I posted in different words. Without FDIC, fractional reserve banks would either go under, or offer a much better interest rate to depositors willing to let them lend out deposits at risk. Full reserve banks (where you pay a fee to store your deposits, but they are not lent out) are not allowed to even exist. And self-custody is maligned as crazy people storing wealth under a mattress. Satoshi diagnosed the problem a decade ago: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/1/ "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. "
