Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
mystes
May 31, 2006

On my alignment matrix, everything that gives rich people money is a bailout

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

rotor posted:

I'm hearing that chase is gonna invest a lot of money in 1st republic

https://twitter.com/Fxhedgers/status/1635067459358314496

bob dobbs is dead
Oct 8, 2017

I love peeps
Nap Ghost
yeah, if you get more than like 5 million peeps using it the actual meaning of a technical term dissolves into mist and vapor

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."
in summary,

human:"i bought a treasury bond but i really need all the money now"
fed:"eat poo poo"
guy that human owed money:"what about me though"
fed:"eat poo poo"

bank:"i bought a whole lot of treasury bonds but i really need all the money now"
fed:"eat poo poo"
guy that bank owed money:"what about me though"
fed:"i got u fam"

PIZZA.BAT
Nov 12, 2016


:cheers:


mila kunis posted:

the people liquidating the assets of this bank to pay back depositors

that’s the fdic, not svb

or maybe the treasury. idk how this poo poo works. svb shareholders pound sand at the end of the day so ‘they’ is definitely not them

haveblue
Aug 15, 2005



Toilet Rascal
functionally it’s a bailout because it’s the difference between the bank completely evaporating and not completely evaporating

but unlike a bailout they aren’t plugging the hole left by bad bets, only the holes left on everyone in the blast radius who was not involved in the bad bet decisions

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

pmchem posted:

no, the treasury is not paying for them. the fed is willing to take them as collateral at par for a loan of up to 1 year:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20230312a1.pdf

the treasury would only have to pay up (and pay the FED) if those govt-backed bonds defaulted while at the fed

i stand corrected then, but, uh, isn't that basically the same thing? the treasury loans to the fed, no?

bob dobbs is dead
Oct 8, 2017

I love peeps
Nap Ghost

communicating confidence during a spate of bank failure is basically like playing the dont think about white elephants game, but for keeps

PIZZA.BAT
Nov 12, 2016


:cheers:


Shifty Pony posted:

it isn't a bailout of the bank, but it is a bailout of a lot of very rich depositors who didn't bother thinking through the risks they were taking because they just assumed that it wouldn't happen to them.

anyone who has nine figgies has more than enough to pay someone who will tell them "hey if you put that is a single bank you better be drat sure that bank is solvent".

this isn’t something you want everyone asking themselves in a healthy society and is getting extremely close to libertarian thinking. the fed/treasury have a very obvious incentive to keeping people’s faith in their cash deposits. because they’re essentially the same thing as cash itself

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
i mean, it kinda depends on how they "enhanced and diversified liquidity"

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
really it feels like a lot of this is semantic bullshit dancing around "we gave them more money"

madmatt112
Jul 11, 2016

Is that a cat in your pants, or are you just a lonely excuse for an adult?

Beeftweeter posted:

i mean, it kinda depends on how they "enhanced and diversified liquidity"

enhanced and diversified their crypto portfolio with that sweet liquidity injection

madmatt112
Jul 11, 2016

Is that a cat in your pants, or are you just a lonely excuse for an adult?

Beeftweeter posted:

really it feels like a lot of this is semantic bullshit dancing around "we gave them more money"

sure, but it’s “we gave the depositors their money back”, and crucially not “we gave the bank a bunch of cash, hope they do the right thing with it”

PIZZA.BAT
Nov 12, 2016


:cheers:


Internet Janitor posted:

in summary,

human:"i bought a treasury bond but i really need all the money now"
fed:"eat poo poo"
guy that human owed money:"what about me though"
fed:"eat poo poo"

bank:"i bought a whole lot of treasury bonds but i really need all the money now"
fed:"eat poo poo"
guy that bank owed money:"what about me though"
fed:"i got u fam"

kind of only the second one only applies to depositors. not creditors or shareholders. they eat poo poo too

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

madmatt112 posted:

sure, but it’s “we gave the depositors their money back”, and crucially not “we gave the bank a bunch of cash, hope they do the right thing with it”

that's true. i can't really get mad about that, the depositors didn't necessarily do anything wrong

Large Testicles
Jun 1, 2020

[ASK] ME ABOUT MY LOVE FOR 1'S

Beeftweeter posted:

that's true. i can't really get mad about that, the depositors didn't necessarily do anything wrong

other than having more than $250k in the account like loving idiots

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
It's in the interests of the fed that depositors trust the US banking system to have their back without them having to care about that sort of thing.

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Jabor posted:

It's in the interests of the fed that depositors trust the US banking system to have their back without them having to care about that sort of thing.

i don't disagree, but this is literally what the people running the bank asked for

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
Anyway in a just world the shareholders that had advance notice of this and sold out the day before things really went down would go to prison, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

pmchem
Jan 22, 2010


Beeftweeter posted:

i stand corrected then, but, uh, isn't that basically the same thing? the treasury loans to the fed, no?

nobody loans the fed money except when the fed is giving them the overnight option (reverse repo).

if the fed wants money to do something they just press a button and balances somewhere change; they're only constrained by law

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
the fed has literally unlimited us dollars as long as the books balance at the end of the day. that's the point of the fed.

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
fair point

PIZZA.BAT
Nov 12, 2016


:cheers:


Beeftweeter posted:

i don't disagree, but this is literally what the people running the bank asked for

yeah and they’re being left out to dry

big shtick energy
May 27, 2004


is it homophobic or okay to start calling peter thiel a welfare queen?

ADINSX
Sep 9, 2003

Wanna run with my crew huh? Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?

Why not just raise the fdic insurance amount per account to something way higher if bailing out depositors is basically guaranteed (something I agree makes sense)

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008


It's meant to protect individual savers, not corporations. It has been raised continuously over time, it started at $2,500 in 1933

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

rotor posted:

well, I;m man enough to admit when i'm wrong



oh god dammit cramer why did you have to hex us

post hole digger
Mar 21, 2011

rotor posted:

well, I;m man enough to admit when i'm wrong



it's so over.

fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:

jim cramer owns

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."
that clip of cramer going off on a tangent about communism while the lady interviewing him looks petrified is gonna live rent free in my head for a while

fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:

Internet Janitor posted:

that clip of cramer going off on a tangent about communism while the lady interviewing him looks petrified is gonna live rent free in my head for a while

"speaking of peasants, let's give them some trades!"

smackfu
Jun 7, 2004

ADINSX posted:

Why not just raise the fdic insurance amount per account to something way higher if bailing out depositors is basically guaranteed (something I agree makes sense)

someone has to pay the fdic insurance bill

Large Testicles
Jun 1, 2020

[ASK] ME ABOUT MY LOVE FOR 1'S

Jabor posted:

It's in the interests of the fed that depositors trust the US banking system to have their back without them having to care about that sort of thing.

it's in my interest that no one should have more than $250k so gently caress them

Captain Foo
May 11, 2004

we vibin'
we slidin'
we breathin'
we dyin'

big shtick energy posted:

is it homophobic or okay to start calling peter thiel a welfare queen?

i would not recommend calling him that

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



big shtick energy posted:

is it homophobic or okay to start calling peter thiel a welfare queen?

"sucking from the public teat" is at least as insulting.

Truman Peyote
Oct 11, 2006



most businesses need to have more than $250k in the bank and i want to continue to get paid so guaranteeing those deposits seems like a fine way to proceed to this uninformed dipshit

seems like you could require businesses to hold insurance on deposits above the FDIC number, although that seems a lot like earthquake insurance in that it is unlikely to pay out in practice

FCKGW
May 21, 2006

Signature Bank went belly up today. There are no more crypto banks in the US.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/12/regulators-close-new-yorks-signature-bank-citing-systemic-risk.html

Optimus_Rhyme
Apr 15, 2007

are you that mainframe hacker guy?

Improbable Lobster
Jan 6, 2012

What is the Matrix 🌐? We just don't know 😎.


Buglord

Beeftweeter posted:

the ceo sold $3.7 million worth of shares on thursday, either way they are doing way better than (probably) any one of us and a soft cushion is entirely undeserved

rich people should get the death penalty for all crimes

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Large Testicles
Jun 1, 2020

[ASK] ME ABOUT MY LOVE FOR 1'S

Truman Peyote posted:

most businesses need to have more than $250k in the bank and i want to continue to get paid so guaranteeing those deposits seems like a fine way to proceed to this uninformed dipshit

seems like you could require businesses to hold insurance on deposits above the FDIC number, although that seems a lot like earthquake insurance in that it is unlikely to pay out in practice

not to me, this is just another inherent problem with capitalism and the sooner the whole system fails, the better. i want wall street and silicon valley on fire

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply