Easy fix ( there is a precedent in a Scandinavian country): 1) Don’t bailout the bank 2) Put in jail all its executives 3) Nationalize the bank 4) Clean up the mess 5) Resell the bank to the public 6) Do not compensate current investors
@clot shots That’s the point. Once you clean up the mess, you can resell it at a decent price avoiding losses to taxpayers. Let the bank just fail will cost more to taxpayers.
they did nothing wrong. everyone freaked out and pulled their money out at the same time because of some poorly worded announcement about a run on funds. then shitty local media pumped the story and things got out of hand. that what happened. in any case, SBV is done and another bank will simply take it's place or the big banks will simply get more customers. this is a NOTHING story. stupid fuk.
No because Democrats will just use taxpayer dollars to bail them out. Or they would if the POTUS wasn't too busy rubbing 12 year old girls shoulders and whispering what he'd like to do to them in their ears.
You have Chase, HSBC, and BOA to choose from in banking in California, I wonder why people would not use one of those big ones, but small regional local banks, especially when they have more than $250k in their accounts to pay for salaries and overheads. Kinda naive don't you think??
Because this bank does specialized banking for the tech industry. They’ve existed for decades. Roku for example isn’t going to use some ordinary bank when they have 500 million in cash
The decision between a bailout, and the associated moral hazard, or national bank runs from small institutions. Things will get extremely controversial by Monday afternoon.
Is there a connection between the freshly prevalent, and soon dominant AI technology (resulting in massive tech job layoffs) and this series of factors contributing to this bank failure?
The CEO's failed to manage their money well....... putting millions in a bank, thats only insured 250K is bad managment. Its greed, they did it because they wanted the interest rates offered by the banks.....Now Let them fail...
Elon musk, you should buy this bank as I know you are always taking about technology and industry so this is your chance probably to grow your wealth and people trust.
fair rpotocls for ifnraciotns and msdimeanors !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! auhtoirty cant override my safety and basc biolgoicla needs fair protocols for infractions and msidmeanros and fair compensation for chores adn hw.
I like how the employees were paid out their bonuses right before the Feds swooped in. A hedge fund is offering 60 cents on the dollar. I bet these folks end up with 85 cents on the dollar if they wait it out.
How much of a role was played by the Trump administration's lifting of some regulations that had been instituted after "the bail out of the banks" during the Obama administration that were supposed to prevent such collapse of big banks?
None…this has to do with inflation and interest rate hikes making their bonds worthless. They bought them at near 0% years ago. When they sold the bonds at a loss it triggered a run on the bank. Inflation and the interest rate hikes are also affecting every other sector in different ways. Tech had the double whammy of decreased sales and having to lose on their bonds.
In that case, that means it's Obama's fault for colluding with them to artificially manipulate market forces, not Trump's for rectifying the issue and allowing free market economics to kill off the ones that can't compete. That makes Trump a hero and an upstanding businessman, unlike those Silicon Valley weasels.
No bail out! Bad investment decisions they made and now you want tax payers to pay them out??? Hummm...who wants to do that? Auction off everything and pay back.
There are very good reasons they don’t do that. Also, most of their clients are businesses that should be spreading out their deposits to different banks to manage liquidity risk.
@@damnjustassignmeone I agree with you that there may be reasons why they limit it to $250K. But it is not practical for a company with $25M to deposit their money over 100 banks so it is all insured. There needs to be a solution to this so people don't lose confidence in the banking system and repeat 2008 or, even worse, the great depression.
@@هذاأنا-ذ3ث Well, I’m not saying a business should spread it out so all deposits are insured. Just spread it out to maybe 4+ banks so if one bank fails, they can still make payroll. Also, it should be noted that most estimate that uninsured depositors will get back about 85-90% of their money back. It’ll just take a while. Federal regulations stepped in very quickly. Before things could get worse.
@@هذاأنا-ذ3ث Also, one thing that we could do to prevent this from happening again is to require that thinks hold more cash. That may have prevented this whole thing. Rules like that were passed under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. However, they were repealed under Trump.
WHAT IF MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW ALL THEIR BANK SAVINGS TOMORROW? If a large number of Americans were to withdraw all of their savings from banks at once, it could potentially have significant implications for the banking system and the broader economy. Banks use customer deposits to fund loans and investments, so a sudden and significant decrease in deposits could limit their ability to lend money and finance economic activity. This could lead to a contraction in credit markets, reduced investment, and slower economic growth. Furthermore, if everyone were to withdraw all their savings at the same time, there may not be enough physical cash to meet the demand, which could lead to long lines at banks and ATMs, and potentially even a cash shortage. It's important to note, however, that it's unlikely that a large number of Americans would suddenly withdraw all of their savings at once. Even during times of economic uncertainty, many people rely on their savings for emergencies and daily expenses and may not have the means to withdraw all of their funds at once. In any case, it's important to be cautious and informed when making decisions about your finances, and to consider the potential risks and consequences of any actions you take. WHAT IF AMERICANS LOSE THEIR TRUST ON BANKS? In general, people's confidence in banks can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as economic conditions, bank policies, and regulatory oversight. If there is a perception that a bank is in financial trouble or is engaging in risky behavior, it could undermine people's trust in that bank and potentially the banking system as a whole. That being said, it's worth noting that banks in the United States are subject to regulatory oversight and are required to hold a certain amount of capital to protect against losses. Additionally, the FDIC insures deposits up to a certain amount, which can help to mitigate the risk of bank failures. Overall, the level of confidence that Americans have in banks may vary depending on a range of factors and individual experiences. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THE FDIC PAY FOR EACH ACCOUNT? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank. This means that if an insured bank were to fail, each depositor's account would be covered up to $250,000, including principal and accrued interest. It's worth noting that the $250,000 limit applies to each depositor's accounts at a given bank, so if you have multiple accounts at the same bank, they are added together, and the total amount insured is up to $250,000. Additionally, if you have accounts at different banks, each bank is separately insured up to $250,000 per depositor. The FDIC provides a comprehensive guide to deposit insurance on their website, which includes information about what types of accounts are covered and how to maximize your insurance coverage. If you have specific questions about your FDIC insurance coverage, it's a good idea to consult with a financial advisor or contact the FDIC directly. HYPOTHETICALLY, WHAT IF THE SAVINGS WORTH $45M, HOW MUCH WILL THE FDIC REIMBURSE THE LOSES? If an individual had a savings account worth $45 million at an FDIC-insured bank that failed, the FDIC would only insure up to $250,000 of the total amount. This means that the depositor would be reimbursed up to $250,000 and would lose the remaining amount that exceeded the insurance limit. It's worth noting that there are ways to potentially increase the amount of FDIC insurance coverage for large deposits, such as by spreading the funds across multiple accounts or by using different ownership categories. However, it's important to consult with a financial advisor or contact the FDIC directly to understand the rules and limitations of deposit insurance. In any case, it's generally recommended to spread large deposits across multiple FDIC-insured banks to maximize FDIC insurance coverage and reduce the risk of losses due to bank failures.
![[PART 2] SERIES: Who Owns Silicon Valley?](/img/1.gif)
Pandemic, Ukraine, Afghanistan, massive civil unrest, Supply Chain disruptions, inflation, bank failures. It's been an interesting 3 years.
Airline bailouts.
Great reset
New World order
Thanks for Voting Democrat you Idiots!
Seriously Biden voters should be stripped of their voting rights for this Tyranny!
Scandals
In 2008, 465 banks failed
Well this will level the playing field. No bail out should be issued.
Bail in will take over deposits over $250K.
I’d like to see the CEO & CRO testify before congress about their risk management.
Easy fix ( there is a precedent in a Scandinavian country):
1) Don’t bailout the bank
2) Put in jail all its executives
3) Nationalize the bank
4) Clean up the mess
5) Resell the bank to the public
6) Do not compensate current investors
@clot shots That’s the point. Once you clean up the mess, you can resell it at a decent price avoiding losses to taxpayers. Let the bank just fail will cost more to taxpayers.
they did nothing wrong. everyone freaked out and pulled their money out at the same time because of some poorly worded announcement about a run on funds. then shitty local media pumped the story and things got out of hand. that what happened. in any case, SBV is done and another bank will simply take it's place or the big banks will simply get more customers. this is a NOTHING story. stupid fuk.
the major bank in start ups. 90% of start ups fail and no one suspected the bank to go with them?
No because Democrats will just use taxpayer dollars to bail them out. Or they would if the POTUS wasn't too busy rubbing 12 year old girls shoulders and whispering what he'd like to do to them in their ears.
Peter Thiel called for
"A Run😱 on SVB," the
day Before.
You have Chase, HSBC, and BOA to choose from in banking in California, I wonder why people would not use one of those big ones, but small regional local banks, especially when they have more than $250k in their accounts to pay for salaries and overheads. Kinda naive don't you think??
Or a credit union!
“Investment banking”
Why would I put my money in a mere mortal credit union when I could dump a bunch of money in a bank for the rich that will never fail 😂😂
Because this bank does specialized banking for the tech industry. They’ve existed for decades. Roku for example isn’t going to use some ordinary bank when they have 500 million in cash
@@issahumps if they did they wouldn't be in this situation.
i love my Credit Union
Lmao people have no idea how bad this is.
The decision between a bailout, and the associated moral hazard, or national bank runs from small institutions. Things will get extremely controversial by Monday afternoon.
It’s starting folks!…Glad I just sold my house for some little equity 😅 Hold on tight!
Start up companies pay day will be zero. Yikes!!
How can Gruesom solve this when he can't even fix the CA DMV!!!
@Martin - Gruesome doesn't even care about Californians. He makes general statements and promises to look good, but does nothing. He doesn't fool me.
Do not bail them out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all banks are always doing this.
Is there a connection between the freshly prevalent, and soon dominant AI technology (resulting in massive tech job layoffs) and this series of factors contributing to this bank failure?
The CEO's failed to manage their money well....... putting millions in a bank, thats only insured 250K is bad managment. Its greed, they did it because they wanted the interest rates offered by the banks.....Now Let them fail...
Frauds and crooks cookin books.
NO BAILOUT!
Our startups are Vital to the US’s economy!
The fall out from this is going to be horrendous
This is why I use a credit union
Most of these tech startups aren’t producing anything.
I blame BLM
@kenneth788. "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment". (Matthew 12:36)
Possible that Bonds were bought on Margin.
Need to find out.
When they bought them they got them for near 0% interest. So many interest rate hikes due to inflation it probably made them near worthless.
No BAILOUT!!
Joe is losing my support had quite a bit of cash with these guys thought they were legit woke
Country C: The CEO of SVB sold his stake and ran away. What if we buy a stake? Will silicon companies also be sanctioned? :)
@Stefan Kalb - if you put all your company finances in crypto, you'd still have your millions. This is why decentralization was created.
Um, izzat you SBF? Silverbank went under right before SVB.
Gee SVB, do you mean investing heavily in that unregulated decentralised Ponzi scheme known as cryptocurrency, didn’t save you? What a shock
I guess someone has been living under a rock for the past 2 years 😂😂😂😂😂 Who's gonna break the bad news to the OP?
All banks Follow
i feel bad for people who couldn't get their money out. hope everything will work out for them.
Poor awareness of counterparty risk. Good thing up to 250k per account was insured.
they'll get their money back. no worries.
Elon musk, you should buy this bank as I know you are always taking about technology and industry so this is your chance probably to grow your wealth and people trust.
SVB paid Lobbyists $500 Million
to successfully get Regulations dropped
for Mid and Small Sized Banks like SVB.
That has nothing to do with the inflation and interest rate hikes that made selling their bonds not profitable.
fair rpotocls for ifnraciotns and msdimeanors !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! auhtoirty cant override my safety and basc biolgoicla needs fair protocols for infractions and msidmeanros and fair compensation for chores adn hw.
I would recommend the state of California to buy the bank.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Yes, it is Californian problems not whole America.
Let the California pay the mess not the whole country.
Did any Indians work there?
Hahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahhaha
THAT IS SO NOT FUNNY!!!!!
@@Jnthncrrll yes it is. 😂
@@brandonburns5365 NO IT IS NOT!!!!!
@@brandonburns5365 NOW YOU JUST SHUT UP AND STOP LAUGHING AT ME, BRANDON!!!!!
@@Jnthncrrll no 😂😂😂😂
I like how the employees were paid out their bonuses right before the Feds swooped in. A hedge fund is offering 60 cents on the dollar. I bet these folks end up with 85 cents on the dollar if they wait it out.
SVB's CEO cashed out. No insider trading.
where the SEC???
There are no bailouts this time. So money is gone.......
*I'm moving my money to China.*
Most safer there.
Then it’s not your money anymore it’s all of their money 😂
OH YOU SHUT UP, JOHN THE TRUMPSTER FREAK!!!!!
@@issahumps Apparently you don't understand international banking sweetie. Don't worry, most poor people don't.
How much of a role was played by the Trump administration's lifting of some regulations that had been instituted after "the bail out of the banks" during the Obama administration that were supposed to prevent such collapse of big banks?
None…this has to do with inflation and interest rate hikes making their bonds worthless. They bought them at near 0% years ago. When they sold the bonds at a loss it triggered a run on the bank. Inflation and the interest rate hikes are also affecting every other sector in different ways. Tech had the double whammy of decreased sales and having to lose on their bonds.
In that case, that means it's Obama's fault for colluding with them to artificially manipulate market forces, not Trump's for rectifying the issue and allowing free market economics to kill off the ones that can't compete. That makes Trump a hero and an upstanding businessman, unlike those Silicon Valley weasels.
Bitcoin is too risky. I am going to trust FDIC insured banks!
This will spread. This will get worse. The markets will tumble. Liquidate your investments. Hunker down.
No bail out! Bad investment decisions they made and now you want tax payers to pay them out???
Hummm...who wants to do that? Auction off everything and pay back.
The workers should be the main concern by pthe government.
WOW GOOD LUCK WAITING FOR HELP I WILL 🙏 FOR THOSE CUSTOMER OF THAT BANK
Killed thousands of mom and pops.
Check your stocks' SEC filings... if SVB loans were involved, better look into it
How about some regulations. Maybe now that it continues to hit wealthier folks regulations may be out in place.
I wonder how DeutschBank lasted like foreverrrrrrrrr 🤔
No no no they just a kid
It’s just so stupid that people can’t create a successful business without first going into debt.
U actually can.
@@middleguy1776 Its increasingly harder to do so everyday. Too much government interference.
@@E_Clampus_Vitus that is true especially in California
@@middleguy1776 😂 I’m here. The land of fruits and nuts
good.
Bitcoin not looking so bad right now eh…
Sure. If you want to invest all your money in a unregulated decentralised Ponzi scheme.
Oh yeah federal government please step in now. Tax $$
istp estp.
FDIC should insure ALL money deposited not just $250K.
There are very good reasons they don’t do that. Also, most of their clients are businesses that should be spreading out their deposits to different banks to manage liquidity risk.
@@damnjustassignmeone
I agree with you that there may be reasons why they limit it to $250K. But it is not practical for a company with $25M to deposit their money over 100 banks so it is all insured.
There needs to be a solution to this so people don't lose confidence in the banking system and repeat 2008 or, even worse, the great depression.
@@هذاأنا-ذ3ث Well, I’m not saying a business should spread it out so all deposits are insured. Just spread it out to maybe 4+ banks so if one bank fails, they can still make payroll. Also, it should be noted that most estimate that uninsured depositors will get back about 85-90% of their money back. It’ll just take a while. Federal regulations stepped in very quickly. Before things could get worse.
@@هذاأنا-ذ3ث Also, one thing that we could do to prevent this from happening again is to require that thinks hold more cash. That may have prevented this whole thing. Rules like that were passed under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. However, they were repealed under Trump.
@@damnjustassignmeone I think I agree with you.
WHAT IF MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW ALL THEIR BANK SAVINGS TOMORROW?
If a large number of Americans were to withdraw all of their savings from banks at once, it could potentially have significant implications for the banking system and the broader economy.
Banks use customer deposits to fund loans and investments, so a sudden and significant decrease in deposits could limit their ability to lend money and finance economic activity. This could lead to a contraction in credit markets, reduced investment, and slower economic growth.
Furthermore, if everyone were to withdraw all their savings at the same time, there may not be enough physical cash to meet the demand, which could lead to long lines at banks and ATMs, and potentially even a cash shortage.
It's important to note, however, that it's unlikely that a large number of Americans would suddenly withdraw all of their savings at once. Even during times of economic uncertainty, many people rely on their savings for emergencies and daily expenses and may not have the means to withdraw all of their funds at once.
In any case, it's important to be cautious and informed when making decisions about your finances, and to consider the potential risks and consequences of any actions you take.
WHAT IF AMERICANS LOSE THEIR TRUST ON BANKS?
In general, people's confidence in banks can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as economic conditions, bank policies, and regulatory oversight. If there is a perception that a bank is in financial trouble or is engaging in risky behavior, it could undermine people's trust in that bank and potentially the banking system as a whole.
That being said, it's worth noting that banks in the United States are subject to regulatory oversight and are required to hold a certain amount of capital to protect against losses. Additionally, the FDIC insures deposits up to a certain amount, which can help to mitigate the risk of bank failures.
Overall, the level of confidence that Americans have in banks may vary depending on a range of factors and individual experiences.
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THE FDIC PAY FOR EACH ACCOUNT?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank. This means that if an insured bank were to fail, each depositor's account would be covered up to $250,000, including principal and accrued interest.
It's worth noting that the $250,000 limit applies to each depositor's accounts at a given bank, so if you have multiple accounts at the same bank, they are added together, and the total amount insured is up to $250,000. Additionally, if you have accounts at different banks, each bank is separately insured up to $250,000 per depositor.
The FDIC provides a comprehensive guide to deposit insurance on their website, which includes information about what types of accounts are covered and how to maximize your insurance coverage. If you have specific questions about your FDIC insurance coverage, it's a good idea to consult with a financial advisor or contact the FDIC directly.
HYPOTHETICALLY, WHAT IF THE SAVINGS WORTH $45M, HOW MUCH WILL THE FDIC REIMBURSE THE LOSES?
If an individual had a savings account worth $45 million at an FDIC-insured bank that failed, the FDIC would only insure up to $250,000 of the total amount. This means that the depositor would be reimbursed up to $250,000 and would lose the remaining amount that exceeded the insurance limit.
It's worth noting that there are ways to potentially increase the amount of FDIC insurance coverage for large deposits, such as by spreading the funds across multiple accounts or by using different ownership categories. However, it's important to consult with a financial advisor or contact the FDIC directly to understand the rules and limitations of deposit insurance.
In any case, it's generally recommended to spread large deposits across multiple FDIC-insured banks to maximize FDIC insurance coverage and reduce the risk of losses due to bank failures.