On March 13 2023 03:50 WhistlerR- wrote:
always on a friday
always on a friday
During a meeting last year they literally planned out the fact that this would happen on a Friday. It's not coincidence.
Forum Index > General Forum |
Jealous
10096 Posts
March 12 2023 19:29 GMT
#2521
On March 13 2023 03:50 WhistlerR- wrote: always on a friday During a meeting last year they literally planned out the fact that this would happen on a Friday. It's not coincidence. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22668 Posts
March 12 2023 19:37 GMT
#2522
| ||
Jealous
10096 Posts
March 12 2023 20:10 GMT
#2523
On March 13 2023 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote: You talking about the bonuses SVB paid out just before being seized? Talking about this FDIC meeting from last November: http://fdic.windrosemedia.com/index.php?category=Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
March 12 2023 23:24 GMT
#2524
Banking regulators devised a plan Sunday to backstop depositors with money at Silicon Valley Bank , a critical step in stemming a feared panic over the collapsed tech-focused institution. Regulators said depositors at both failed SVB and Signature Bank in New York, which also has been closed, will have full access to their deposits. Signature had been a popular funding source for cryptocurrency companies. The Treasury Department said it approved of plans that would unwind both institutions “in a manner that fully protects all depositors.” Those with money at the bank will have full access starting Monday. The Federal Reserve also said it is creating a new Bank Term Funding Program aimed at safeguarding institutions impacted by the market instability of the SVB failure. A joint statement also said there would be no bailouts and no taxpayer costs associated with any of the new plans. Shareholders and some unsecured creditors will not be protected and will lose their investments, . “Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system,” said a joint statement from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg. The Fed facility will offer loans of up to one year to banks, saving associations, credit unions and other institutions. Those taking advantage of the facility will be asked to pledge high-quality collateral such as Treasurys, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. “This action will bolster the capacity of the banking system to safeguard deposits and ensure the ongoing provision of money and credit to the economy,” the Fed said in a statement. “The Federal Reserve is prepared to address any liquidity pressures that may arise.” The Treasury Department is providing up to $25 billion from its Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the funding program. A senior Fed official said the Treasury program likely won’t be needed and will exist as a safeguard. Along with the facility, the Fed said it will ease conditions at its discount window, which will use the same conditions as the BTFP. Markets reacted positively to the developments, with futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average leaping more than 250 points in early trading. Cryptocurrency prices also rallied strongly, with bitcoin up more than 7%. The news came after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday morning that there would be no SVB bailout. “We’re not going to do that again. But we are concerned about depositors and are focused on trying to meet their needs,” Yellen said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” The SVB failure was the nation’s largest collapse of a financial institution since Washington Mutual went under in 2008. The dramatic moves come just days after SVB, a key financing hub for tech companies, reported that it was struggling, triggering a run on the bank’s deposits. Authorities had spent the weekend looking for a larger institution to buy SVB, but came up short. PNC was one interested buyer but backed out, a source told CNBC’s Sara Eisen. A senior Treasury official said a sale is still possible for Silicon Valley Bank. The initiatives Sunday were done to head off further potential problems. The scenario harkened back to the Sept. 15, 2008 of investment banking giant Lehman Brothers, which also found itself insolvent and in search of a buyer. The government also was unsuccessful in that case following a weekend of wrangling, triggering the worst of the crisis. Source edit: Now Signature Bank has been closed/taken over by regulators. U.S. regulators on Sunday shut down New York-based Signature Bank in a bid to prevent the spreading banking crisis. “We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority,” Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC said in a joint statement Sunday evening. Sourcre | ||
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
March 12 2023 23:42 GMT
#2525
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/investing/svb-customer-bailout/index.html Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Sunday instructed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee Silicon Valley Bank customers will have access to all of their money starting Monday. By guaranteeing all deposits – even the uninsured money customers kept with the failed bank – the government can ensure public confidence in America’s banking system, Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said in a joint statement. The Fed also said Signature Bank was closed Sunday and that a similar system will be put in place for customers of that bank – all depositors will be made whole. And the Fed will make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent runs on similar banks Monday. | ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24564 Posts
March 13 2023 00:08 GMT
#2526
| ||
Sermokala
United States13735 Posts
March 13 2023 01:54 GMT
#2527
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
March 13 2023 02:05 GMT
#2528
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41936 Posts
March 13 2023 02:28 GMT
#2529
On March 13 2023 08:42 BlackJack wrote: and here comes the bailout https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/investing/svb-customer-bailout/index.html Show nested quote + Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Sunday instructed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee Silicon Valley Bank customers will have access to all of their money starting Monday. By guaranteeing all deposits – even the uninsured money customers kept with the failed bank – the government can ensure public confidence in America’s banking system, Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said in a joint statement. The Fed also said Signature Bank was closed Sunday and that a similar system will be put in place for customers of that bank – all depositors will be made whole. And the Fed will make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent runs on similar banks Monday. They have assets. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22668 Posts
March 13 2023 02:47 GMT
#2530
On March 13 2023 09:08 micronesia wrote: Is bailing out the customers the same thing as bailing out the bank? It's not necessarily "the same thing" but it is still a problematic bailout imo. It basically means the $250,000 FDIC "cap" doesn't apply if the loss of your money would present too much systemic risk. So essentially if you're a businesses that regularly has over $250k FDIC The people most imagine as "customers" with under $250,000 in a bank account (the overwhelming majority of people in the US) would have had their deposits covered without the bailout. | ||
SC-Shield
Bulgaria805 Posts
March 13 2023 07:05 GMT
#2531
On March 13 2023 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wall St is hoping that this will be the end or at least slow the rate hikes. Only problem is that nobody knows what Powell thinks about all this, also Biden is set to speak in the morning about the Banking system. Well, if Wall St hopes for rate hikes to stop, do they also hope for 1981 recession? Who knows if current interest rates are enough to stop inflation... My guess is not considering start of the year didn't show promising trend so far. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
March 13 2023 09:34 GMT
#2532
Goldman analysts now expect no rate hike in March due to recent bank failures : https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/goldman-analysts-no-longer-expect-fed-rate-hike-march-after-svb-failure-2023-03-13/ Just one week ago consensus was .5% hike in March with rates peaking at 5.75%. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/07/fed-chair-powell-says-interest-rates-are-likely-to-be-higher-than-previously-anticipated.html | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21336 Posts
March 13 2023 10:09 GMT
#2533
| ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
March 13 2023 11:51 GMT
#2534
On March 13 2023 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Show nested quote + On March 13 2023 09:08 micronesia wrote: Is bailing out the customers the same thing as bailing out the bank? It's not necessarily "the same thing" but it is still a problematic bailout imo. It basically means the $250,000 FDIC "cap" doesn't apply if the loss of your money would present too much systemic risk. So essentially if you're a businesses that regularly has over $250k FDIC The people most imagine as "customers" with under $250,000 in a bank account (the overwhelming majority of people in the US) would have had their deposits covered without the bailout. But how much of that uninsured money is from businesses who can't make payroll now. Do you think workers not getting paid is good for the workers? It's also a simple matter that the bank has the funds to cover everything if people didn't all withdraw at this exact moment. The government restoring faith is the correct thing to do here so there isn't a mass sell off and people don't get screwed. There isn't fraud or poor speculative investment in this case. They bought safe bonds at the lowest yield in history and now interest rates have risen so much that if they sell them they can't cover their deposits. They only need to sell them if people lose faith in the bank itself though which has the negative feedback loop of screwing everyone else. | ||
Jealous
10096 Posts
March 13 2023 12:11 GMT
#2535
On March 13 2023 20:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 13 2023 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: On March 13 2023 09:08 micronesia wrote: Is bailing out the customers the same thing as bailing out the bank? It's not necessarily "the same thing" but it is still a problematic bailout imo. It basically means the $250,000 FDIC "cap" doesn't apply if the loss of your money would present too much systemic risk. So essentially if you're a businesses that regularly has over $250k FDIC The people most imagine as "customers" with under $250,000 in a bank account (the overwhelming majority of people in the US) would have had their deposits covered without the bailout. But how much of that uninsured money is from businesses who can't make payroll now. Do you think workers not getting paid is good for the workers? It's also a simple matter that the bank has the funds to cover everything if people didn't all withdraw at this exact moment. The government restoring faith is the correct thing to do here so there isn't a mass sell off and people don't get screwed. There isn't fraud or poor speculative investment in this case. They just bought safe bonds at the lowest yield in history and now interest rates have risen so much that if they sell them they can't cover their deposits. They only need to sell them if people lose faith in the bank itself though which has the negative feedback loop of screwing everyone else. What about those bonuses they awarded themselves just before shit hit the fan? Or the CEO or whatever who sold $4 million of the stock? I'm fine with workers and companies not being punished for a bank's mistakes. However, these fucking people need to be tried in court and if jailed, they will serve as a deterrent to others doing the same thing. Even if they weren't playing fast and loose with money, there are others that are, and if they know that the government will just sweep everything under the rug and that they can give themselves a $4 million exit package on the way out, what incentive is there for them not to gamble recklessly with people's money? Fuck. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17829 Posts
March 13 2023 12:25 GMT
#2536
On March 13 2023 19:09 Gorsameth wrote: The saddest part to me is that the chance of there finally being a large scale reform of the entire financial sector to better secure everything is basically 0. So this will just keep happening every decade or 2. Well, that ship already sailed. SVB actively lobbied against these regulations: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/11/silicon-valley-bank-weaken-risk-regulations-svb In 2015, SVB President Greg Becker submitted a statement to a Senate panel pushing legislators to exempt more banks – including his own – from new regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite warnings from some senators, Becker’s lobbying effort was ultimately successful. Touting “SVB’s deep understanding of the markets it serves, our strong risk management practices”, Becker argued that his bank would soon reach $50bn in assets, which under the law would trigger “enhanced prudential standards”, including more stringent regulations, stress tests and capital requirements for his and other similarly sized banks. Becker insisted that $250bn was a more appropriate threshold. No surprise that this succeeded (albeit not immediately): under Trump the limit was raised from 50 to 250m. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17829 Posts
March 13 2023 12:37 GMT
#2537
On March 13 2023 21:11 Jealous wrote: Show nested quote + On March 13 2023 20:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: On March 13 2023 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: On March 13 2023 09:08 micronesia wrote: Is bailing out the customers the same thing as bailing out the bank? It's not necessarily "the same thing" but it is still a problematic bailout imo. It basically means the $250,000 FDIC "cap" doesn't apply if the loss of your money would present too much systemic risk. So essentially if you're a businesses that regularly has over $250k FDIC The people most imagine as "customers" with under $250,000 in a bank account (the overwhelming majority of people in the US) would have had their deposits covered without the bailout. But how much of that uninsured money is from businesses who can't make payroll now. Do you think workers not getting paid is good for the workers? It's also a simple matter that the bank has the funds to cover everything if people didn't all withdraw at this exact moment. The government restoring faith is the correct thing to do here so there isn't a mass sell off and people don't get screwed. There isn't fraud or poor speculative investment in this case. They just bought safe bonds at the lowest yield in history and now interest rates have risen so much that if they sell them they can't cover their deposits. They only need to sell them if people lose faith in the bank itself though which has the negative feedback loop of screwing everyone else. What about those bonuses they awarded themselves just before shit hit the fan? Or the CEO or whatever who sold $4 million of the stock? I'm fine with workers and companies not being punished for a bank's mistakes. However, these fucking people need to be tried in court and if jailed, they will serve as a deterrent to others doing the same thing. Even if they weren't playing fast and loose with money, there are others that are, and if they know that the government will just sweep everything under the rug and that they can give themselves a $4 million exit package on the way out, what incentive is there for them not to gamble recklessly with people's money? Fuck. I don't know that the CEO did anything wrong? I mean... it looks bad, but he followed the rules requiring him to announce a month in advance he planned on selling stock. So he effectively chose to sell on January 26, not February 27. I'm sure the SEC will investigate whether it was insider trading, but I find it hard to imagine he knew on January 26 that the announcement to refinance would cause a run on the bank. In fact, the need to refinance might not even have been clear yet (if it was, it does sound like insider trading regardless of whether it causes a run on the bank or not: the need to refinance obviously causes the stock to drop, but the rules are going to be tricky here: the CEO will always have information about things that will affect the stock price far in advance, so it's a tricky situation). | ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
March 13 2023 13:04 GMT
#2538
On March 13 2023 21:11 Jealous wrote: Show nested quote + On March 13 2023 20:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: On March 13 2023 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: On March 13 2023 09:08 micronesia wrote: Is bailing out the customers the same thing as bailing out the bank? It's not necessarily "the same thing" but it is still a problematic bailout imo. It basically means the $250,000 FDIC "cap" doesn't apply if the loss of your money would present too much systemic risk. So essentially if you're a businesses that regularly has over $250k FDIC The people most imagine as "customers" with under $250,000 in a bank account (the overwhelming majority of people in the US) would have had their deposits covered without the bailout. But how much of that uninsured money is from businesses who can't make payroll now. Do you think workers not getting paid is good for the workers? It's also a simple matter that the bank has the funds to cover everything if people didn't all withdraw at this exact moment. The government restoring faith is the correct thing to do here so there isn't a mass sell off and people don't get screwed. There isn't fraud or poor speculative investment in this case. They just bought safe bonds at the lowest yield in history and now interest rates have risen so much that if they sell them they can't cover their deposits. They only need to sell them if people lose faith in the bank itself though which has the negative feedback loop of screwing everyone else. What about those bonuses they awarded themselves just before shit hit the fan? Or the CEO or whatever who sold $4 million of the stock? I'm fine with workers and companies not being punished for a bank's mistakes. However, these fucking people need to be tried in court and if jailed, they will serve as a deterrent to others doing the same thing. Even if they weren't playing fast and loose with money, there are others that are, and if they know that the government will just sweep everything under the rug and that they can give themselves a $4 million exit package on the way out, what incentive is there for them not to gamble recklessly with people's money? Fuck. Where I work pays out bonuses in March every year and this isn't some conspiracy. It's very common to pay them right after all the book keeping is done for taxes which for businesses is March 15. If bonuses were paid off schedule right before the fall I'd agree with you, but that isn't the case here from what I've read. If they paid bonuses last year the second week of March and then again this year is it a conspiracy? I'm pretty sure the CEO would have had to file his sale 4 weeks in advance as well for regulatory reasons. If he did do insider trading he can be charged with the proper felony independent of saving the bank. There are many things that went wrong, should be investigated and reformed. There is also a lot of misinformation and hot takes floating around that didn't happen and don't address those things. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
March 13 2023 13:16 GMT
#2539
| ||
RvB
Netherlands6190 Posts
March 13 2023 13:17 GMT
#2540
On March 13 2023 21:25 Acrofales wrote: Show nested quote + On March 13 2023 19:09 Gorsameth wrote: The saddest part to me is that the chance of there finally being a large scale reform of the entire financial sector to better secure everything is basically 0. So this will just keep happening every decade or 2. Well, that ship already sailed. SVB actively lobbied against these regulations: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/11/silicon-valley-bank-weaken-risk-regulations-svb Show nested quote + In 2015, SVB President Greg Becker submitted a statement to a Senate panel pushing legislators to exempt more banks – including his own – from new regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite warnings from some senators, Becker’s lobbying effort was ultimately successful. Touting “SVB’s deep understanding of the markets it serves, our strong risk management practices”, Becker argued that his bank would soon reach $50bn in assets, which under the law would trigger “enhanced prudential standards”, including more stringent regulations, stress tests and capital requirements for his and other similarly sized banks. Becker insisted that $250bn was a more appropriate threshold. No surprise that this succeeded (albeit not immediately): under Trump the limit was raised from 50 to 250m. There is no way to eliminate the risk of bank runs under a system fractional reserve banking. The only option would be to change to full reserve banking where banks are required to hold all deposits in reserve. Full-reserve banking has a fair share of issues though and will probably push the maturity transformation to the (less regulated) shadow banking sector so it is not even clear if it reduces systemic risk in the financial sector. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • RyuSc2 StarCraft: Brood War![]() • Freeedom5 • IndyKCrew ![]() • sooper7s • Migwel ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Replay Cast
Clem vs Zoun
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] [BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|