- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Wapo reporting fed is strongly leaning towards covering all uninsured deposits at SVB
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Also I'm sure there can be some accounting where the Fed "buys" some of these assets from FDIC to make the illiquid asset liquid, which isn't really "bailing out" b/c the net spend would be $0.
This isn't an asset issue as much as a liquidity issue.
Right. Good points.
2
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:13 pm to Mo Jeaux
I still have a problem with it because, ultimately, these depositors knowingly took the risk of depositing all the money above the insured limit.
It also gives the left an incredibly potent argument in favor of student loan bailouts.
You engaged in a financial transaction on clearly stated terms and now want to be saved from the consequences of doing so. The FDIC didn’t hide the insurance cap on deposit accounts. Depositors decided to take the risk with SVB because it was friendly to their industry.
What is so hard about doing the following?
Biden goes on tv tonight and says
"I am sorry for these depositors and i wish them well in their future endeavors, but the regulations clearly state the insured limits on deposits. We are a nation of laws, but we are also a nation where the words of our regulations must have clear strength. The federal government will be honoring the fdic insurance limits as they are written. Have a nice sunday evening"
It also gives the left an incredibly potent argument in favor of student loan bailouts.
You engaged in a financial transaction on clearly stated terms and now want to be saved from the consequences of doing so. The FDIC didn’t hide the insurance cap on deposit accounts. Depositors decided to take the risk with SVB because it was friendly to their industry.
What is so hard about doing the following?
Biden goes on tv tonight and says
"I am sorry for these depositors and i wish them well in their future endeavors, but the regulations clearly state the insured limits on deposits. We are a nation of laws, but we are also a nation where the words of our regulations must have clear strength. The federal government will be honoring the fdic insurance limits as they are written. Have a nice sunday evening"
This post was edited on 3/12/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:14 pm to Mo Jeaux
Yeah I mean we're talking about treasuries, right?
They have no real value on March 12, 2023 because the FDIC froze everything but they still have real long-term value.
Just like if the fed announced they had a $1T fund to cover depositors across the country, just to keep everyone from panicking and creating runs on banks across the US. They don't actually have to spend $1T, but it would be written that way, even if $0 was used from the fund.
Some people have a real fetish for collapse because they haven't really thought it through. They think their 5k rounds of .223 is all they need when they're really just cosplaying survivalist.
They have no real value on March 12, 2023 because the FDIC froze everything but they still have real long-term value.
Just like if the fed announced they had a $1T fund to cover depositors across the country, just to keep everyone from panicking and creating runs on banks across the US. They don't actually have to spend $1T, but it would be written that way, even if $0 was used from the fund.
Some people have a real fetish for collapse because they haven't really thought it through. They think their 5k rounds of .223 is all they need when they're really just cosplaying survivalist.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I've also seen them claim 33-60% of the accounts are foreign-owned, with no real citation.
It’s in their 2022 Fed Disclosure Stmts, primarily out of Singapore and Tel Aviv. On my phone right now - I’ll try to post later
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Please make a coherent argument why it is proper for the federal government to bend the regulatory language to insure deposits above 250k, but it is not proper for the federal government to bend the language to bail out students in debt.
SlowFlowPro
I am telling you right now, giving these uninsured depositors relief will poll in the teens and will likely be the end of biden's reelection chances.
We are already seeing numerous politicians on both sides react in disgust to the wapo report that action is imminent.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:21 pm to dafif
quote:
What gives them the legal authority???
They don’t need authority. There is no one to stop them.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:23 pm to dafif
quote:
What gives them the legal authority???
If 2/3 of the Fed Governors determine or vote the risk is “systemic” taxpayers are on the hook to make Oprah and Prince Harry whole.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Federal authorities are seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.
frick that shite.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Please make a coherent argument why it is proper for the federal government to bend the regulatory language to insure deposits above 250k, but it is not proper for the federal government to bend the language to bail out students in debt.
Well, first of all, this is a strawman and false choice.
I laid out earlier how this whole scheme can work in the short term and cost $0
Forgiving student loans can never, by default, have that sort of a low cost.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well, first of all, this is a strawman and false choice.
I laid out earlier how this whole scheme can work in the short term and cost $0
Forgiving student loans can never, by default, have that sort of a low cost.
You are relieving depositors of risks they knowingly took. I don't care if it costs 0 dollars.
It is not the job of the government to bend regulatory rules.
Putting more than 250k in a bank is the definition of a risk.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are ways to fix this issue in the short term that don't actually cost any money but would look like a "bailout" to people who want to melt down about it.
Why does it need to be “fixed”?
Why can’t a bad business fail, and everyone who invested or deposited their funds with that bad business suffer the consequences?
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:33 pm to Indefatigable
The business has failed, and investors in the business must bear the losses.
The question is about depositors. Taking your view to the extreme, why even cover depositors up to $250k?
The question is about depositors. Taking your view to the extreme, why even cover depositors up to $250k?
This post was edited on 3/12/23 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:39 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Taking your view to the extreme, why even cover depositors up to $250k?
Why take it to the extreme?
They ARE covered up to 250 because that’s where Congress decided to set the insured deposit threshold to ensure stability/trust in the system.
My view is that uninsured deposits are uninsured deposits. Not that insuring deposits is evil or wrong or that we shouldn’t do it.
If everyone wants to decide that all deposits are insured, Congress needs to pass that legislation prospectively….not selectively enact that policy retroactively whenever their donors get pinched.
This post was edited on 3/12/23 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
But it’s not a straw man and you are smart enough to see the issue at its core.
Stop litigating for a second and critically think.
Stop litigating for a second and critically think.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 3:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
What about Silvergate. Are we leaving them out of this?
Posted on 3/12/23 at 4:02 pm to BourreTheDog
Wrong. She said they wouldn’t bail out the banks or its investors. They are fully considering bailing out depositors, etc.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 4:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
If everyone wants to decide that all deposits are insured, Congress needs to pass that legislation prospectively….not selectively enact that policy retroactively whenever their donors get pinched.
This.
The rules are the rules. If you change them, then change them for all. Bailing out their depositors is bullshite and will only lead to more of the same down the line.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They think their 5k rounds of .223 is all they need when they're really just cosplaying survivalist.
5k rounds? That is cosplay. shite, I know way more people with waaaaaaay more than that than I do those with less. Certain areas of the country are quite a bit different than yours. The world you live in is not the same as ours. I just hope you guys stay in your urban strongholds and don't make us waste any more of our resources than we have to. frick bailouts. I'm ready for the shite to hit the fan before I get too old to do shite about it. Time to either fix it or frick it.
Posted on 3/12/23 at 4:13 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
The world you live in is not the same as ours. I just hope you guys stay in your urban strongholds and don't make us waste any more of our resources than we have to.
SFP lives in Calcasieu Parish. Where are you that your world is so different than his that mighty (and Republican) Lake Charles is considered an “urban stronghold”?
This post was edited on 3/12/23 at 4:14 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News