Where all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul socialists to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison political cartoons gets a three-day vacation.
we need more messages like that out of washington. no smears. no political bs. just facts, solutions, and procedures going forward.
I do think explaining complicated political/economic issues in layman's terms is needed more too but this was a very oversimplified version of what is actually going on with these regional banks and gives the impression that the banks clients are blameless and should be made whole.
We can probably start a thread on this mess but two things I feel like this congressman is ignoring in his synopsis:
1)That there are safeguard options for bank accounts that exceed the $250k federally insured deposit limit and well run companies would take advantage of these options.
2)This mess was caused by deregulation in 2018 for small banks after the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 brought banks back from their collapse. So politicians on both sides of the aisle are also to blame.
I thought he addressed that when he said, "Are there things that need to be changed moving forward? Yes, absolutely. But now is not that time......" or however he said it.
The point is that a vast majority of the people are blameless. Take for example a person that has a CD in one of those two banks. You might live in Dallas, Texas. You have several million with a broker at a big firm like AG Edwards. You want it in interest bearing accounts, but you have to spread it around because you can only insure $250,000 at a time. So, that broker gets on his computer and finds banks around the country that have CD's listed for sale. They find one at a bank in California that is offering 4.9% for 2 years. Its pretty much in line with what other banks are offering and so you tell him go ahead and get you a 2 year CD with that bank.
Now, how much research can you actually be expected to put into studying the balance sheet of that particular bank for that particular investment? You expect the system to protect you to some degree so that only vetted and established banks can even be on the playing field for transactions like that.
This article does a good job to show that the customers are not blameless and possibly don't deserve a "bailout".
But you are right, it takes a lot more experience and extra work than many of these tech start ups were willing to implement in protecting their deposits. The "blanket" Dodd-Frank regulations were the safeguard that prevented a bank run scenario or mismanagement by the banks itself. Lifting these regulations for the "small" banks looks ridiculous in hindsight.
we need more messages like that out of washington. no smears. no political bs. just facts, solutions, and procedures going forward.
I do think explaining complicated political/economic issues in layman's terms is needed more too but this was a very oversimplified version of what is actually going on with these regional banks and gives the impression that the banks clients are blameless and should be made whole.
We can probably start a thread on this mess but two things I feel like this congressman is ignoring in his synopsis:
1)That there are safeguard options for bank accounts that exceed the $250k federally insured deposit limit and well run companies would take advantage of these options.
2)This mess was caused by deregulation in 2018 for small banks after the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 brought banks back from their collapse. So politicians on both sides of the aisle are also to blame.
I thought he addressed that when he said, "Are there things that need to be changed moving forward? Yes, absolutely. But now is not that time......" or however he said it.
The point is that a vast majority of the people are blameless. Take for example a person that has a CD in one of those two banks. You might live in Dallas, Texas. You have several million with a broker at a big firm like AG Edwards. You want it in interest bearing accounts, but you have to spread it around because you can only insure $250,000 at a time. So, that broker gets on his computer and finds banks around the country that have CD's listed for sale. They find one at a bank in California that is offering 4.9% for 2 years. Its pretty much in line with what other banks are offering and so you tell him go ahead and get you a 2 year CD with that bank.
Now, how much research can you actually be expected to put into studying the balance sheet of that particular bank for that particular investment? You expect the system to protect you to some degree so that only vetted and established banks can even be on the playing field for transactions like that.
This article does a good job to show that the customers are not blameless and possibly don't deserve a "bailout".
But you are right, it takes a lot more experience and extra work than many of these tech start ups were willing to implement in protecting their deposits. The "blanket" Dodd-Frank regulations were the safeguard that prevented a bank run scenario or mismanagement by the banks itself. Lifting these regulations for the "small" banks looks ridiculous in hindsight.
I guess you could put the blame on a person buying a car if the air bags blew up while they were driving down the road and caused them to crash and die. I mean, they could have done enough research to know the bags were faulty when the car company made the deal to install that brand. But, we live in a society that certain protections are expected to be required. Understanding the balance sheet of a bank well enough to make a determination about whether an internet speculation could go viral enough to shut them down is hardly a level of expectation you can place on a customer. Now, if you start trusting that bank with more than an insured amount then that expectation level might go up. But, as a business owner, I have dealt with several banks and I would never pretend to act like I have studied their financials enough to know if they could sustain a run like these banks have seen.
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:10 pm
I guess you could put the blame on a person buying a car if the air bags blew up while they were driving down the road and caused them to crash and die. I mean, they could have done enough research to know the bags were faulty when the car company made the deal to install that brand. But, we live in a society that certain protections are expected to be required. Understanding the balance sheet of a bank well enough to make a determination about whether an internet speculation could go viral enough to shut them down is hardly a level of expectation you can place on a customer. Now, if you start trusting that bank with more than an insured amount then that expectation level might go up. But, as a business owner, I have dealt with several banks and I would never pretend to act like I have studied their financials enough to know if they could sustain a run like these banks have seen.
The bolded part is what turns the discussion to apples and oranges. You would be making risky moves by exceeding the Federally Insured limit, without looking further into the institution or mitigating your risk with other safer options (that were available to SVB customers). That's all I'm trying to say. Would have been nice to hear a congressman point this out. Try to educate the masses like Howie does.
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:10 pm
I guess you could put the blame on a person buying a car if the air bags blew up while they were driving down the road and caused them to crash and die. I mean, they could have done enough research to know the bags were faulty when the car company made the deal to install that brand. But, we live in a society that certain protections are expected to be required. Understanding the balance sheet of a bank well enough to make a determination about whether an internet speculation could go viral enough to shut them down is hardly a level of expectation you can place on a customer. Now, if you start trusting that bank with more than an insured amount then that expectation level might go up. But, as a business owner, I have dealt with several banks and I would never pretend to act like I have studied their financials enough to know if they could sustain a run like these banks have seen.
The bolded part is what turns the discussion to apples and oranges. You would be making risky moves by exceeding the Federally Insured limit, without looking further into the institution or mitigating your risk with other safer options (that were available to SVB customers). That's all I'm trying to say. Would have been nice to hear a congressman point this out. Try to educate the masses like Howie does.
yes, but you have to understand. when it comes to businesses, almost 100% of them are going to exceed the $250,000 limit. So you are asking every single small business that uses a bank to study their balance sheet like a bank regulator is supposed to already do. If that honestly became the expectation of every customer for a bank, then that entire industry would have to change. A small business would have to hire a firm to vet the bank before putting any money into them. And then that firm they hired would have to bond their findings to guarantee that they did the proper research. It would be like having to buy an insurance policy on your insurance company in case they failed.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:07 am
there is a run on the banks, that have actual money in them. and the price of bitcoin is up for the year. what a fucked up time we are in.
Oh.i didn't realize those were exclusively bitcoin. I only learned to read today.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:07 am
there is a run on the banks, that have actual money in them. and the price of bitcoin is up for the year. what a fucked up time we are in.
Oh.i didn't realize those were exclusively bitcoin. I only learned to read today.
no. the list you posted are actual banks. who are in trouble right now because people are dumping stock and pulling out deposits.
and i was pointing out the peculiarity of the fact that bitcoin prices were up today. which is just fucking backwards to making any sense.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:07 am
there is a run on the banks, that have actual money in them. and the price of bitcoin is up for the year. what a fucked up time we are in.
Oh.i didn't realize those were exclusively bitcoin. I only learned to read today.
no. the list you posted are actual banks. who are in trouble right now because people are dumping stock and pulling out deposits.
and i was pointing out the peculiarity of the fact that bitcoin prices were up today. which is just fucking backwards to making any sense.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:07 am
there is a run on the banks, that have actual money in them. and the price of bitcoin is up for the year. what a fucked up time we are in.
Oh.i didn't realize those were exclusively bitcoin. I only learned to read today.
no. the list you posted are actual banks. who are in trouble right now because people are dumping stock and pulling out deposits.
and i was pointing out the peculiarity of the fact that bitcoin prices were up today. which is just fucking backwards to making any sense.
It’s not surprising to me. There’s nothing propping up the value of the US dollar or US deposits when the reserve can just flood the market with more of it.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:07 am
there is a run on the banks, that have actual money in them. and the price of bitcoin is up for the year. what a fucked up time we are in.
Oh.i didn't realize those were exclusively bitcoin. I only learned to read today.
no. the list you posted are actual banks. who are in trouble right now because people are dumping stock and pulling out deposits.
and i was pointing out the peculiarity of the fact that bitcoin prices were up today. which is just fucking backwards to making any sense.
It’s not surprising to me. There’s nothing propping up the value of the US dollar or US deposits when the reserve can just flood the market with more of it.
there hasn't been any thing propping that up in our life times. And that's the same for most currencies around the world. Think about China's currency. Talk about monopoly money on steroids. They went from a third world country to an economy that is fixing to surpass ours in not very many years. Its literally impossible to come up with enough chinese money to do that without simply printing it and handing it out.
If you can't be a good example, you can still serve as a horrible warning.
“All mushrooms are edible. Some even more than once!”
これを グーグル 翻訳に登録してくれておめでとう、バカ。
We've been over this. I'll be happy to explain again: In theory, "woke" just means being aware of past injustices. Unfortunately, "woke" has now taken on a more activist nature in practice. This means actively, often aggressively, pursuing and/or pushing discriminatory policies and beliefs in the name of "equity".
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
