- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Midsize Bank Coalition ($15B-$115B In Assets) Officially ask FDIC to insure all depositors
Posted on 3/19/23 at 9:50 am to Free888
Posted on 3/19/23 at 9:50 am to Free888
quote:I realize all that. But people are crying like the bank was buying tons of super high-risk DEI driven assets. That’s not the case. The bout to many assets that are almost cash-equivalent. Held to maturity, there was very little risk.
The problem here wasn’t buying treasuries, it was buying longer duration treasuries. When rates went up, the underlying value of those treasuries dropped.
SVB (and tons of other banks) did this. all while the Fed was reassuring everyone that inflation was “transitory” and rates weren’t going to rise.
If people want to be angry, they should be angry at the fed, and the government for having too much debt to sell.
quote:Nah. Still wouldn’t have survived a run.
The bank was greedy-if they had purchased short term treasuries they would have been fine.
quote:I don’t know enough about Roku’s operations to say that.
Roku should have done the same thing. Buy short term treasuries with their excess cash and then don’t roll over when they needed cash. That’s why their CFO and treasury department should be looking for a job. They were flat out stupid.
I will say a lot of startups keep a lot in cash for various reasons. Angel investors don’t want to see a brand new management team playing with capital, high burn rates, etc. A startup with $10 million in series A money and a burn rate of $750k/month is thirsty for cash, and not going to be able to keep everything under $250k without a lot of juggling.
This post was edited on 3/19/23 at 9:56 am
1
Posted on 3/19/23 at 9:52 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:Yeah. Even if one did some risk analysis…. What’s safer than a bank backed mostly by US treasuries?
Bc I am covered by FDIC. Minute you go over fdic limit you need to consider your risk.
If you consider US treasuries too risky, how is the FDIC less risky? If the government defaults on its bonds, it’s not paying out FDIC claims.
quote:You should be more careful.
You said a specific product I used at a company wouldn't work for literally what I used it for
This post was edited on 3/19/23 at 9:58 am
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:19 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You should be more careful.
Why
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:21 am to thelawnwranglers
Has this been confirmed because this is the only place I am seeing this.
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:23 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If you consider US treasuries too risky, how is the FDIC less risky? If the government defaults on its bonds, it’s not paying out FDIC claims.
Why you being obtuse
What's your main point
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:28 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Roku should have done the same thing. Buy short term treasuries with their excess cash and then don’t roll over when they needed cash. That’s why their CFO and treasury department should be looking for a job. They were flat out stupid.
I agree with this
Posted on 3/19/23 at 2:55 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:Its not complicated. To consider FDIC-backed deposits much safer than US treasury backed deposits… You would have to anticipate one of two scenarios:
Why you being obtuse
What's your main point
- the government defaults on treasuries, but still pays out FDIC insurance. (not reasonable)
- a run on the bank, where the FDIC would allow the bank to keep the yet-to-mature US treasuries, and not give anything to depositors over the $250k limit because… we don’t like “rich” people.
That would be like letting a person go through bankruptcy, not pay their creditors, but keep their Ferrari collection.
The government is very unlikely to do that., and in fact… did not do that. (it would have been suicide).
The FDIC doesn’t take depositor funds (even if over the limit) when a bank is insolvent. Why would anyone expect them to take deposited funds when there’s high-quality assets?
I’ll never understand the desire to deliver some sort of comeuppance for having more than $250k in the bank. It’s AOC level class warfare.
This post was edited on 3/19/23 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 3/19/23 at 3:01 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Its not complicated. To consider FDIC-backed deposits much safer than US treasury backed deposits… You would have to anticipate one of two scenarios:
I don't considered FDIC backed deposits safer
Posted on 3/19/23 at 3:05 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
never understand the desire to deliver some sort of comeuppance for having more than $250k in the bank. It’s AOC level class warfare.
I don't have a problem with bail out per se just for overall banking system health. Also I don't want depositors punished but don't see them materially different then any other creditor of the bank.
I think the depositors could have managed risk better. I think that's were we disagree?
Posted on 3/19/23 at 3:08 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Not just “want” the same treatment but I’m not sure how they can legally pick winners and losers.
Because they're authoritarians that will jail you and brand you an "insurrectionist" if you go against them.
Posted on 3/19/23 at 3:14 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Because they're authoritarians that will jail you and brand you an "insurrectionist" if you go against them.
Difference between mostly peaceful and al.ost destroying democracy all about brand
Posted on 3/19/23 at 3:56 pm to Catchfalaya
Bet the farm on $FAZ
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:21 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
quote:
Roku should have done the same thing. Buy short term treasuries with their excess cash and then don’t roll over when they needed cash. That’s why their CFO and treasury department should be looking for a job. They were flat out stupid.
I agree with this
They also could have hedged against the risk (as could SVB). Major screw ups all around.
Posted on 3/19/23 at 10:52 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:I'd definitely consider a depositor ahead of the toilet paper vendor. But I don't know the bankruptcy law for banks.
Also I don't want depositors punished but don't see them materially different then any other creditor of the bank.
quote:Yeah. I think that's fair. I don't think depositors get a chance to manager the bank's assets. The whole point of having bank examiners, stress tests, and fed oversight, and FDIC is so depositors don't have to be exposed to bank asset risk. I think it's entirely fair to say those overseers... did a isht job.
I think the depositors could have managed risk better. I think that's were we disagree?
But lets be honest... the government and fed have an agenda. They are never going declare a bank "high risk" for holding too many treasuries. That would be suicidal for a government sitting on $31 trillion in debt.
This post was edited on 3/19/23 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 3/19/23 at 11:11 pm to Jack Carter
quote:Is that a quote from his website where, for $29.95 a month you can have access to his opinions?
Balaji Srinivasan is well known for his forecasts about social and political trends he made on the eve of the global 2020 crisis.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News