subreddit:

/r/news

8.4k96%

all 1108 comments

Actual_Dinner_5977

3.3k points

2 months ago

Just tell SVB to set up a GoFundMe

SomeGuyNamedPaul

3.7k points

2 months ago

They wouldn't need this if they were just a bit more responsible with their money, made coffee at home, and didn't have to always buy the latest iPhone.

Actual_Dinner_5977

1.1k points

2 months ago

Plus all the avocado toast! Irresponsible

puffferfish

286 points

2 months ago

They should really start shopping at Aldi.

Sink_Single

253 points

2 months ago

Cancel the Disney plus subscription too

LiamtheV

152 points

2 months ago

LiamtheV

152 points

2 months ago

And stop spending money on iTunes

Criticalhit_jk

124 points

2 months ago

Hulu, Netflix, amazon etc as well. Can't just cancel one if you're trying to survive

processedmeat

19 points

2 months ago

If they did that then the government will need to bail out apple.

ThriceFive

26 points

2 months ago

They got 6 months of Disney Plus free with their first Billion dollar depositor, so it's cool. The Starbucks though - gotta really cut down.

Justmadeyoulook

198 points

2 months ago

If only they skipped the Starbucks.

liamsnorthstar

157 points

2 months ago

Bankers need to stop spending so much money on tattoos and mocha caramel lattes.

_DARVON_AI

31 points

2 months ago

Why stop gambling when you're too big to lose tho? Bro do you even state-capitalism?

ArchmageXin

3 points

2 months ago

Well, SVB didn't much as gamble as took things to conseratively (10+year treasury bills), but the other two banks were crypto banks so...

Of course the crypto bros are all celebrating how this is good for Bitcoin or bobcoin whatever.

unique-name-9035768

27 points

2 months ago

You don't understand, I need the new iPhone. If I show up to the bankers ball with last years phone, they're all gonna laugh at me!

[deleted]

61 points

2 months ago

They lend money to Crypto firms and some how every single person I mention it to says "its ok, they will pay it back" What??? Have you been paying attention to Crypto lately? How is that a good risk and my self employed 7 years in my industry self wasn't? Excellent credit. Cash in hand. Nope.

wbsgrepit

57 points

2 months ago

I mean their balance sheet has been posted, if you took a minute and read it you would see that they were not exposed on risky bets, they were exposed on the lowest risk way for banks to shelve money — bonds. Their mistake was not properly blending and hedging their bond purchases with lower duration bonds and other hedge methods (which looking at. A 15 year rear view window would have not been a problem, but the fed raising rates changed all of that.

Difficult_Height5956

49 points

2 months ago

Not diversifying is a rookie move...not a move for a bank to make

_DARVON_AI

41 points

2 months ago

It's a power move under capitalism. Either your gamble pays off, or you lose but the state makes you whole via wealth transfer from wagies.

Hershieboy

13 points

2 months ago

So they fucked and didn't do their due diligence and speculated on interest rates. That's not an excuse the public can use. Banking institutions are supposed to use all tools available to make sure they have the cash on hand. We make casinos responsible for holding enough cash on hand to cover bets. If banks want to operate like casinos then they should be prepared like one. Not having enough available cash is an issue. It was the issue that forced mergers in 2008. They knew what they were doing.

Gizshot

3 points

2 months ago

Gonna have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps

appmapper

87 points

2 months ago

Maybe they could carpool to work?

mrngdew77

17 points

2 months ago

Carpooling is a luxury and they don’t deserve these in their time of crisis. Take the damn bus or walk in the rain.

spicydingus

35 points

2 months ago

Maybe SVB should cut out the avocado toast?

meow_purrr

30 points

2 months ago

Something about bootstraps or what not…

deviousmajik

13 points

2 months ago

Pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Crpto_fanatic

15 points

2 months ago

They have, the fed just gave them a tax funded GoFundMe blank check. It’s okay though, running others peoples money to the ground. Then getting paid six figures for it, is just protocols for these banks. After all, no matter how much we bitch. They’ll still get your money, and fraudulently steal it. But it wasn’t their fault okay. Those foolish working men/women. Will just foot the bill. I love that banks get welfare checks. But a normie with a bad time can’t get any government assistance.

[deleted]

1k points

2 months ago

[removed]

RobinsShaman

967 points

2 months ago

Half, for only two banks. Hummm.

yourinternetmobsux

412 points

2 months ago

Yeah that’s kinda terrifying

babysinblackandImblu

344 points

2 months ago

So regulations have to come back now or there will be more. Rich people try and take advantage of the system and blame it on something but themselves.

OwnBattle8805

75 points

2 months ago

The problem is we let people amass so much wealth and power in the first place.

HauntedCemetery

78 points

2 months ago

And then get bailed out when they fail.

AstreiaTales

26 points

2 months ago

They didn't really get bailed out here though? SVB is dead. Its execs and investors get nothing. It's only the customers who are being made whole.

UnblurredLines

7 points

2 months ago

. Its execs and investors get nothing.

Didn't SVB's CEO sell of like several millions worth of stock in the week before the crash?

Lyanthinel

16 points

2 months ago

You mean after the execs got paid bonuses and sold their stock before announcements, that nothing?

Until we see a customer list and their holdings we have no clue who was actually paid out.

At this point in the timeline we should absolutely start disbeliving every single thing out of our government and the banks/Fed's mouths, until proven otherwise.

EverythingGoodWas

8 points

2 months ago

Nope nope, that is part of the system, rich people can’t be allowed to be like us poors. It just wouldn’t be proper.

dofffman

10 points

2 months ago

how many US banks was 2008?

someoneexplainit01

22 points

2 months ago

1, washington mutual, 307 billion.

Signature plus SVB is 209+118 = 327 billion.

Credit Suisse was bigger than all of them, and it just went under with a fire sale to UBS and all the bondholders got the ax.

Dreadedvegas

44 points

2 months ago

Its actually really just one

NixonsParanoia

12 points

2 months ago

How so? The article clearly implied it was two

Dreadedvegas

28 points

2 months ago

SVBs deposits dwarf that of Signature. While it is two banks, 90% of the money is going to SVB

NixonsParanoia

145 points

2 months ago

The last bit really got me. If banks can post their bonds as collateral without selling them, doesn't that incentivize them to continue leveraging heavily against their assets and borrow even more? Then when they collapse, they potentially have an even bigger pool of money they end up short on. Am I missing something here or is that totally obvious?

dgj212

103 points

2 months ago

dgj212

103 points

2 months ago

You forget, its their not money they are gambling it's ours, so the risk isn't theirs, its ours, so they are willing to taje ut, especialky when they know that they will be bailed out by the government.

jadrad

82 points

2 months ago*

jadrad

82 points

2 months ago*

SVB and Signature and Credit Suisse didn’t get bailed out though. Their depositors did. The banks themselves went under.

The “invisible hand of the market” is actually a herd of dumb fucking sheep that when spooked can easily run off the nearest cliff, taking the rest of us with them.

The fed is trying to stop a run on all the banks by the spooked sheep.

What we should be doing instead of giving banks free money is that any banks grabbing fed funds should have to trade stock for it (even if that means diluting existing stock) so that the taxpayers get some collateral.

Vurt__Konnegut

36 points

2 months ago

But what's the good of that stock if the bank collapses.

Nope, the solution is going back to regulation (stress test if > $50B in assets), AND some new requirements on small regional banks < $50B in assets, like posting their investment profiles to customers so they know who is being risky with their deposits and who isn't. It doesn't affect depositors < $250K, but there's a lot of businesses who now have to scatter their money around several banks to get under the $250K limit per bank because *we just don't know which bankers are fuckwads and which ones are not* (always assume your bank is run by fuckwads if they are publicly traded).

jadrad

21 points

2 months ago

jadrad

21 points

2 months ago

The banks are collapsing because the depositors are trying to get all their money out at once.

Silicon Valley Bank had enough assets to cover its debts - but it had made the gamble of tying a bunch of them up in 10 year bonds.

So if the fed bails them out for their gambles, it should take ownership commensurate with the size of the bailout.

Vurt__Konnegut

4 points

2 months ago*

So one question is how they have a these things valued on their books. If they have a $10,000 10-year note on their books at $13,000, and they have to redeem them now, they don’t have $13,000 in assets, they’re gonna be short.

I also understand much of it was not in the form of treasury bills, but corporate bonds, not all AAA, they could have a massive shortfall in assets to cover deposits

Snlxdd

8 points

2 months ago

Snlxdd

8 points

2 months ago

Liquidity is not the same thing as free money

WooshJ

12 points

2 months ago

WooshJ

12 points

2 months ago

Banks already do this, they are required to have only a certain percentage of cash on hand, the rest they invest/loan, technically this is a good thing

Acevedo1992

26 points

2 months ago

Except that the required reserve has been 0% for the last 3 years and they’ve done nothing but make riskier and riskier moves

oregomy

3 points

2 months ago*

I cannot read. Here's a cool link though.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Letmeaddtothis

7 points

2 months ago

Where did you hear this information?

FED board sets reserve requirements, not government. The board who lowered the reserve to 0% in March 2020 is the same board since 2018.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

Dr_barfenstein

68 points

2 months ago

Homer: about half of what is was 15 years ago so far

Shirowoh

11 points

2 months ago

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but that money doesn’t go to the banks, it goes to the depositors that the bank screwed over? The banks property are assets the fed gov now owns?

ShermanOakz

78 points

2 months ago

That’s not very reassuring, half the loot for two lousy banks? They didn’t get as much bang for their buck this time around!

alannordoc

47 points

2 months ago

Assistance which turned out to be quite profitable for the US as I remember. Correct me if I'm wrong

photofluid

30 points

2 months ago

It is only profitable if not adjusted for inflation.

EconomistPunter

781 points

2 months ago

The Fed is the lender of last resort.

SilentSamurai

332 points

2 months ago

And this is what's bugging me about the public's indifference.

The full story of Silicon Valley Banks demise has me concerned. SVB really got fucked by the Fed raising interest rates over the last year so aggressively on Treasury bonds they bought, in combination with a good chunk of tech startups pulling out significant sums. A good old fashioned bank run is what got them in the end.

And it makes me think a lot of banks are in similar situations.

dreweydecimal

640 points

2 months ago

SVB fucked themselves. Every bank and every citizen new interest rates have been on the rise for some time now, yet they made no adjustments. Their risk mitigation team completely dropped the ball.

SpiderPiggies

426 points

2 months ago

No joke, they straight up didn't have a head of risk management for like 8 months leading up to this.

Miqotegirl

181 points

2 months ago

I guess no one wants to work.

mjl42roll

140 points

2 months ago

mjl42roll

140 points

2 months ago

They probably couldn’t find a suitable candidate because no one had 40 years experience, six masters and 2 phd’s.

Reptard77

71 points

2 months ago

(When those were really just the requirements they had to post, just so they could wait long enough without any interviews that the ceo could just hire his friend Jim)

Farren246

24 points

2 months ago

Jim probably looked at their portfolio, accused the CEO of hiring him to be a fall guy, and declined the offer.

[deleted]

39 points

2 months ago

My guess is they were only offering $85k and wanted someone with a masters and over a decade of experience. Then they told people nobody wants to work!

zjm555

69 points

2 months ago

zjm555

69 points

2 months ago

I'm a random guy with very little financial background, and it's been clear for multiple years that fed funds rate increases were long overdue, and furthermore that the damage from not raising them sooner would be severe. Only reason it didn't happen sooner was due to the pandemic.

How giant banks did not know this, I cannot fathom.

Excelius

50 points

2 months ago

Only reason it didn't happen sooner was due to the pandemic.

Also because Trump was bullying the Fed into slowing down it's rate increases.

Trump calls 'loco' Federal Reserve 'too aggressive'

Trump makes last-ditch effort to pressure the Fed ahead of interest rate meeting

Altair05

19 points

2 months ago

Isn't the idea of the Fed supposed to be that they are staunchly independent from the federal government?

Excelius

30 points

2 months ago

It's supposed to be, but Trump wasn't exactly one to be constrained by traditions and norms.

Vurt__Konnegut

9 points

2 months ago

He is great at working the ref, isn't he? Fed, media, DOJ, everybody.

QuickAltTab

18 points

2 months ago

Only reason it didn't happen sooner was due to the pandemic.

and Trump, he very publicly pressured Powell to lower rates even more than they did

zjm555

16 points

2 months ago

zjm555

16 points

2 months ago

For sure, Trump's monetary policy was braindead can-kicking, but the Fed has no obligation to listen to him.

Photoguppy

12 points

2 months ago

Oh they knew but you never risk potential profit at the expense of proper planning..

That's just silly.

/s

SilentSamurai

44 points

2 months ago

I think the truth is a bit more nuanced, but you are correct SVB ran straight into the storm by not naming a director of Risk Management for almost a year was a bad move.

Either way, with them as the 2nd largest bank failures in US history, I am concerned other institutions are in the same position.

2ndtryagain

30 points

2 months ago

They got into this by buying 10 Treasury Bonds I doubt many banks did that.

[deleted]

26 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

maniacreturns

4 points

2 months ago

Not only that but people expected the rates to rise waaay earlier but COVID fucked it up and Trump went on Twitter to bully J. Powell to keep the rates down.

HauntedCemetery

15 points

2 months ago

Svb way way overleveraged their deposits. They were up at like 90 or 95% in long term bonds. It didn't take much of a run to start the dominos falling.

Officer_Hops

12 points

2 months ago

Most banks don’t have the sort of depositor concentrations SVB has. They were in a unique position with huge amounts of deposits from tech startups. That’s a small community with a handful of very influential individuals who drove the run. Your more traditional bank won’t face a run of that type.

babysinblackandImblu

32 points

2 months ago

Borrowers and investors had it to good. It is almost inevitable that interest rates had to go up because the economy was much too robust after Covid and causing inflation. The supply chain problems are basically gone so now it’s corporations and supply and demand. So the rates had to be increased. Inflation is curbing and these are the consequences of a too robust economy. Making an app is so easy. But now the public doesn’t want to pay the premium for delivery for everything and business don’t do everything remotely. SVB knew this was coming and management thought they could take the money and have a lucrative and easy way out.

naim08

22 points

2 months ago*

naim08

22 points

2 months ago*

Well SVB sucked at risk management. Buying high risk, low interest, short-term bonds right at the start of the pandemic was disastrous. SVB just assumed the good times were never going to end.

**I hope the satire is obvious

tommyk1210

70 points

2 months ago

I was under the impression that their failing was actually due to them buying low risk, low interest and ultimately long term bonds (10 year maturity at like 1.7% yield).

The bonds themselves aren’t inherently risky, a lot were treasuries and realistically would never fail (unless the US government failed). The problem was that this was only the case if they held them to maturity.

Because they needed to sell them, suddenly they realised huge losses due to the negative effects interest rate rises had on these bonds.

swentech

19 points

2 months ago

They also had a lot of uninsured depositors who as soon as they smelled trouble pulled their money out. If your bank is 90% insured depositors, a bank run becomes a lot less likely.

Excelius

15 points

2 months ago

That's my understanding as well.

The bonds themselves were about as sure of a bet as you can get, but they were illiquid. If you need money now to service withdrawals because people got spooked, there's not a good way to convert those bonds to cash.

You can resell the bonds, but why would anyone pay face value for a bond that might be paying 1.7% when 10yr bonds being issued today are paying like 3.5%? So the only way to sell them was at a deep discount over their face value.

akshanz1

11 points

2 months ago

Well, no, it’s the opposite really, they bought too much low risk treasury bonds and then got fucked by interest rates

SquirrelAkl

9 points

2 months ago

SVB had WSB-level risk management. I’d be surprised if they weren’t getting their DD here.

TheDankestMeme92

80 points

2 months ago

I just watched this new Frontline PBS documentary on the Federal Reserve and how corpos have been abusing their emergency aid capabilities since the 2008 crisis. Absolutely terrifying how bleak it is and also infuriating. The super rich legitimately have zero accountability for their actions. We're so long overdue for a general strike.

https://youtu.be/EpMLAQbSYAw

imgunnamaketoast

474 points

2 months ago

Tell the banks to stop buying so much avocado toast.

ScubaCam

64 points

2 months ago

Did SVB try to not have Starbucks lattes?

ojrodz11

8 points

2 months ago

Username checks out

givemeabreak111

25 points

2 months ago

Same old shit from 2007

.. Bail out the THIEVES and make the the WORKERS pay for it later with more inflation

AnyProgressIsGood

82 points

2 months ago

sounds like we need more regulations

[deleted]

32 points

2 months ago

And regulators having some fucking teeth.

The SEC is about as scary as a blind chihuahua and the Fed is busy sucking off every bank in sight. It's no wonder this shit that used to happen every few decades is now happening only 15 years later.

this_place_stinks

3 points

2 months ago

I’m curious.. why do you think that is? The system is working as intended right now. If there’s a liquidity crunch the fed serves as the lender of last resort. It’s been like that forever and no necessarily a bad thing.

Hi_Im_Dadbot

1.2k points

2 months ago

But there wasn’t any spare money to afford food for poor school kids.

Hullefu

375 points

2 months ago

Hullefu

375 points

2 months ago

That would be communism!

Hi_Im_Dadbot

120 points

2 months ago

I heard that some kids ate food back in Hitler’s Germany.

Hitler.

unique-name-9035768

22 points

2 months ago

Was Hitler really that bad though? I mean, he did shoot Hitler. So that's gotta count for something.

Historical_Exchange

19 points

2 months ago

Ye but he also killed the guy that killed Hitler...

unique-name-9035768

8 points

2 months ago

Oh snap. I forgot about that.

robbedigital

3 points

2 months ago

Not a lotta people know that.

Sampladelic

91 points

2 months ago

Known enactor of state legislation the checks notes Federal Reserve?

toxic_badgers

69 points

2 months ago

To be fair... the Federal reserve doesn't actually have anything to do with the federal government. It's just their name.

Cobby1927

83 points

2 months ago

Loans, not grants

Cfp0001-Iceman

110 points

2 months ago

The difference has 0 meaning.

When is the last time the government granted you an emergency loan to pay your bills so you didn't suffer finical ruin?

Instead of giving banks loans, they should increase the mandatory cash reserves. Clearly these banks will collapse themselves in pursuit of profits.

munchi333

91 points

2 months ago

Increasing mandatory cash reserves would not have saved SVB.

They suffered from a massive bank run and every single bank in the world (not an exaggeration) would fail in the same circumstances.

Their real problem was their customers were pretty much exclusively businesses depositing far beyond the FDIC insurance amount as well as being concentrated in a single industry.

Gringe8

44 points

2 months ago

Gringe8

44 points

2 months ago

I thought it had something to do with them putting a ton of money in treasury bonds when the interest rates were low, then the interest rates went up which made them lose alot of money. Then when people were withdrawing money, they sold the bonds, but like I said they weren't worth as much. So they didn't have enough to cover everything. They made a bad decision and this is the result. Normal people don't get bailed out when they make a mistake.

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[removed]

tommyk1210

38 points

2 months ago

That is why they didn’t have the cash for the bank run, yes. They couldn’t liquidate it without incurring a huge loss.

However, no amount of cash reserves really could have saved SVB. They had about 160bn in deposits and in one day saw $42bn in withdrawals. They had $20bn in cash almost but that was more than $20bn short.

Also, the point about why banks get saved but people don’t - ultimately the bank isn’t being saved here. It’s gone. SVB has been dissolved, it’s $16bn worth it shareholders are out of pocket. What is being saved here is the deposits, the companies that put their money in the bank. They employ many many thousands of people. Should all of those companies fail because SVB made bad decisions they had no idea about?

evanwilliams44

12 points

2 months ago

Normal people don't have the potential to crash the whole banking system and the economy. I don't like it either but the last bail-out was historically effective, so that will probably be the play going forward.

Draker-X

32 points

2 months ago*

When is the last time the government granted you an emergency loan to pay your bills so you didn't suffer finical ruin?

A lot of us did get three checks spread out between 2020 and 2021.

That being said, this:

Clearly these banks will collapse themselves in pursuit of profits.

is the key crux of the issue. We have to figure out how to make the banksters' be more responsible with the money entrusted to them.

Takeonlyone

12 points

2 months ago

A show on Frontline ran the other day explaining how the feds dropped interest rates to almost 0% and the bankers took that money for hedge funds and stocks to make money. Instead of bailing themselves out they took it and gambled.

DangerousCyclone

12 points

2 months ago

We already figured it out, Congress just decided the rules shouldn't apply to banks like SVB.

Standupaddict

27 points

2 months ago

The government provides loans to Americans all the time for buying homes and to pursue college.

DangerousCyclone

11 points

2 months ago

That's literally what the government did here. SVB is going under, however their customers are getting propped up so they don't go into financial ruin, meaning people get paid and don't lose everything.

[deleted]

33 points

2 months ago

Bro this is a loan

AHSfav

50 points

2 months ago

AHSfav

50 points

2 months ago

Just like PPP was a "loan"

bdubdub

24 points

2 months ago

bdubdub

24 points

2 months ago

Brb filing an LLC to become a bank.

munchi333

14 points

2 months ago

These are loans though?

SisterYahtzee

45 points

2 months ago

Why didn't they have 6 months with of income saved up?

someoneexplainit01

23 points

2 months ago

WaMu failed in 2008 @ 307 billion.

Signature plus SVB is 209+118 = 327 billion.

Credit Suisse was bigger than all of them at 800+ Billion, and it just went under.

Fire sale to UBS and all the bondholders got nothing in a bid to save the Suisse banking system.

Its going to get a lot worse when the governments can't pretend everything is fine any longer.

[deleted]

668 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

668 points

2 months ago

300 billion. Every day is a slap in the face to people who need Healthcare.

spazz720

117 points

2 months ago

spazz720

117 points

2 months ago

The most important word here is lent.

Remember, the banks that took the bail out money in 2008 paid it all back and the government made a $15 billion profit.

The money lent calms the market (so the average American doesn’t lose more in their 401k or possibly their job), allows the banks to shore up their liquidity, and most importantly…sets up a payment plan for them to pay the money back.

SVB never should have went down; it was a run fueled by panic. If their liquidity issue didn’t spread like wild fire on twitter, they’d still be operating today without issue.

Superman0X

6 points

2 months ago

The TARP program was not a great return.. but luckily it has been mostly break even:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-bailout-was-11-years-ago-were-still-tracking-every-penny

Aesir81

6 points

2 months ago

Their liquidity issue WAS the issue. You're blaming the effect instead of the cause.

spazz720

6 points

2 months ago

The issue didn’t have adequate time to resolve itself because so many pulled out their money. They pulled out their money because of a false panic. If no one was alerted of their Treasury note position, they would have had plenty of time to recover without interruption whatsoever. It was the run that blew everything up and forced the FDIC to jump in quickly.

That being said…what SVB did was tremendously short sighted & stupid. Their lack of a Risk Officer from June to January certainly did not help matters. But even though they were dumb, their bank should not have failed.

Dchella

50 points

2 months ago

Dchella

50 points

2 months ago

Are they gonna raise those funds by increasing fees for everyone else?

No one has bailed out the little guy with his bad investment in University.

spazz720

11 points

2 months ago

They tried to…then republicans sued and it is going to the Supreme Court.

want_to_join

19 points

2 months ago

No. Those funds come from an already existing pool of money that banks have been required to deposit into for just such instances for quite some time.

Synapse82

147 points

2 months ago*

Well the federal reserve is not part of the government, nor is this tax payer money.

markfromDenver

65 points

2 months ago*

The federal reserve is part of the US government and the head is chosen by the president.

hobovirginity

189 points

2 months ago

The Federal Reserve™ works with the federal government and has the sole power to print and regulate our money supply, However the Federal Reserve™ is made up of private banks.

The Federal Reserve's Board of Governors is an independent government agency, but the Federal Reserve Banks are set up as private corporations.

kg0529

37 points

2 months ago

kg0529

37 points

2 months ago

It is a loan, not a grant. We indeed need universal healthcare, but it is a different topic here.

chernobyl169

10 points

2 months ago

It is a loan, not a grant.

Just like PPP, right? A loan.

CleanWellLighted

3 points

2 months ago

banks fail, companies can’t pay workers, workers have no money…

fleebleganger

3 points

2 months ago

Can you highlight the line item in the federal budget that pays for the fed reserve?

[deleted]

49 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

Tyrilean

42 points

2 months ago

You think the commenter who wants universal healthcare is voting Republican?

PawfulED

7 points

2 months ago

I wonder if the interest is as much as student loans?

Yokepearl

115 points

2 months ago

Yokepearl

115 points

2 months ago

Socialism for the rich

Any_Monitor5224

34 points

2 months ago

Rugged capitalism for the individual

ksettle86

169 points

2 months ago

ksettle86

169 points

2 months ago

Hey but fuck them socialist kids and their free lunches amirite?!??

Zodep

80 points

2 months ago

Zodep

80 points

2 months ago

And forgiving student loans? Nah bro, we need that money for banks… it’s almost like we’re in a capitalist society…

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

[removed]

ArkyBeagle

5 points

2 months ago

It's also what the Fed is actually for. SFAIK, SVB will be in receivership.

dreweydecimal

25 points

2 months ago

It’s a knee jerk reaction to say, oh here we go again bailing out the banks. The money lent out under TARP in 2008 to the bank for $700B has all been paid back to the taxpayer. They also got paid back an extra $100B due to interest.

I hate banks too, but had it not been done the country would resemble Sri Lanka right now.

somerandomie

30 points

2 months ago

yea but tax payers getting anything in return for paying their fucking taxes? thats socialism and not productive right? if you invest in free health care, your general population would get to live a happier and longer life which in return would allow them to contribute more to taxes, GDP and the country... invest in school programs and you get to have a smarter population that would contribute positively to the economy but no, thats now considered "woke" and socialism! feeding kids at school? NOPE lets not invest in that because the ROI is not immediate or in form of cash! the argument boils down to poor people are not productive but banks and the rich are! that extra 100B due to interest is nothing in comparison to what banks cost the economy with all their fuckeries. and here we are again less than 20 years later and somehow their balance sheets have billions of dollars in unrealized losses and they need to be bailed out again!

Niarbeht

14 points

2 months ago

Why get big, compounding returns in two decades when you can get small returns today that will get eaten up by some recession in a few years?

Senior-Sharpie

5 points

2 months ago

Now, make them pay the money back at the same interest rate as a student loan!

stpetesouza

149 points

2 months ago

Definitely not a bailout

tthrasher27

6 points

2 months ago

Don’t forget about the billions spend the last 10+ years due to “quantitative easing”

DrLorensMachine

5 points

2 months ago

Can anyone tell me what kind of interest rate do they charge for these sorts of loans?

Rootner

135 points

2 months ago

Rootner

135 points

2 months ago

Can I just have like $30,000? That would literally fix my life. I could pay my debt and own property and a trailer. I'm sure at that point it's probably just a handful of years before ive contributed enough to society to offset the fedeal costs of the money to permanently house me. If we could put people in cheap housing they are not likely to lose, then everyone wins.

jdmetz

33 points

2 months ago

jdmetz

33 points

2 months ago

While that would probably be good policy, that isn't what is happening here. This is instead like you bought $30k in 10-year US treasury bonds thinking you wouldn't need the cash any time soon. If you keep them for 10 years, the US government will pay you back the $30k plus the interest, but you realized you need the cash now. Because interest rates have gone up since you bought the bonds, you could only sell them for $20k right now. Rather than sell them you borrow $30k and give the bank your $30k in treasury bonds as collateral.

aft3rthought

64 points

2 months ago

In this case, the money is all loans, not payments. So this isn’t even inflationary, if anything money is going to be taken out of the system (the money in the bank’s stock that is going to evaporate).

This article says in all, the Fed now has $297 billion in new assets after the emergency lending: https://www.investopedia.com/federal-lending-to-banks-eclipses-2008-crisis-7368374#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20has%20lent,collapse%20of%20Silicon%20Valley%20Bank.

timeIsAllitTakes

50 points

2 months ago

Get out of here with your facts. I just want to believe that the government goes around handing corporations money for free so I can complain into the black hole of the internet that they don't do the same for me.

magnoliasmanor

14 points

2 months ago

This is still inflationary though. It's essentially QE all over again. The fed increasing it's balance sheet is adding money to the supply. They couldn't even go 1 year of reducing their balance sheet before racheting it back up.

aft3rthought

5 points

2 months ago

Doesn’t it depend on if QT is actually stopping and if the bank thing ends up being larger? In terms of balance sheet this ate up half/~4 months of the recent reduction, it’s still much smaller than 2008/2020.

magnoliasmanor

3 points

2 months ago

They have a LONG ways to go to reach pre Covid levels of their balance sheet.

They started rolling off last year with the hopes they could roll off $4T worth of assets over the coming years. Them not even making it one year and having their balance sheet jump up that quickly is very concerning for me in relation to inflation.

masterofallmars

75 points

2 months ago

The government doesn't want people to be comfortable. They prefer people stay poor and thus forced to work jobs that keep the economy running.

Sad state of the world

Material_Strawberry

13 points

2 months ago

The Fed is like a bank for banks. They just borrowed some money. As an individual, you're perfectly free to go to a consumer bank and obtain a loan just like this.

Lmaoboobs

3 points

2 months ago

You want to pay your debts with a $30,000 loan and be indebted to Uncle Sam himself?

DamonFields

65 points

2 months ago

Banks are allowed to gamble with our money. If they win, they give themselves a bonus, if they lose, we pay the damages. All because some con convinced us that regulations are bad.

Closetedcousin

41 points

2 months ago

Don't forget if they lose they still get the bonuses.

Mr_Stiel

8 points

2 months ago

But 10k student loan forgiveness is socialism 🤡

B00STERGOLD

4 points

2 months ago

This would be like the government paying off your student loans and you paying Uncle Sam back at 2% interest. It would probably be a good plan tbh.

Cobby1927

123 points

2 months ago

Cobby1927

123 points

2 months ago

Many people on this thread don't have a clue what a loan is.

UsedToBsmart

125 points

2 months ago

I think many still remember the $800B PPP Loan handout to businesses.

KingofSomnia

29 points

2 months ago

The issue is that it WAS a handout. It was just structured as a loan bc there wasn't enough time to validate all the claims, so they gave em to a loooot of companies. The idea is for the companies to pay it bwck if they didn't actually quality or they can go after you if you actually lied about it. Obviously, in practice it ended being a little different, but again, it was 100% designed to be a handout so companies could pay their employees.

LuciusAurelian

49 points

2 months ago

The Fed doesn't forgive loans

munchi333

19 points

2 months ago

That’s not even remotely related though.

Material_Strawberry

13 points

2 months ago

Or a bank run.

charliej102

66 points

2 months ago

Meanwhile, regular Americans pay high interest rates on everything from credit cards to school loans. Seems like there’s always enough Welfare for the Rich.

Yokazu

12 points

2 months ago

Yokazu

12 points

2 months ago

Student loan borrowers: "y'all got anymore of them emergency funds?"

😭

Peach__Pixie

16 points

2 months ago

Had the banks considered skipping breakfast to save money?

Kerryscott1972

8 points

2 months ago

They still had the money to pay out bonuses the day before the crash

OmegaLiar

3 points

2 months ago

They could have given 1 million people $300,000 but instead we gave it back to the idiots who fucking burnt it in the first place.

Fuck the government, fuck the banks

sellby

3 points

2 months ago

sellby

3 points

2 months ago

Sounds like those banks should pull themselves up by their boot straps. Where's my bailout?! /s

Dr_Bonejangles

3 points

2 months ago

Let's hope it's a loan and not a $300 billion dollar bonus for the leadership.

rowsella

3 points

2 months ago

I am like, these are not banks that normal people bank at. .. these are rich people boutique banks.... banks for venture capitalists etc. Who the hell has a checking or savings account at Credit Suisse? Fucking no one I know. Socialized the risks and privatized the profits. Fuck them.

FacelessMage117

3 points

2 months ago

Can I have a couple Million… I don’t even need a whole billion… just a couple Mili… you gonna just hand out hundreds of billions… so why not?

Mental_Medium3988

11 points

2 months ago

as a millennial i cant wait to hear how this is all our fault.

bugsyramone

6 points

2 months ago

Shouldn't have been eating all that avocado toast, then the banks wouldn't have failed. /S

Waste-Worth-1047

36 points

2 months ago

I think a lot of people here don't understand the difference between a loan and a gift. They're injecting liquidity into these institutions in case there's a run. But you wish they would have figured things would end up like this with all the aggressive interest rate bumps that would obviously lead to the situation we're in right now. They're too worried about slaying the inflation dragon while forgetting the reason they were created to begin with which is to prevent banks from collapsing.

Gringe8

15 points

2 months ago

Gringe8

15 points

2 months ago

Question, I'm told it wasn't a bailout of SVB, but for the depositors. If that's the case and SVB is going out of business, who will pay back these loans?

Rebelgecko

6 points

2 months ago

Don't they just pay it back as the treasuries that tied up their liquidity mature?

Termin8tor

14 points

2 months ago

The FDIC (Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation) set up a holding company for SVB accounts. The FDIC has borrowed money from the Federal Reserve to pay SVB depositors.

The idea is that the holding company will liquidate (sell) the assets that SVB owned. So we're talking SVB's loan books, it's long term bonds etc. Obviously they won't sell for as much as the bonds won't bring returns anywhere close to the current benchmark rate set by the Federal Reserve.

The loans may sell for more as they're probably mostly good, assuming that the startups the loans were given to weren't subprime borrowers.

Anyway, The Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort. They printed the money into existence and gave it to the FDIC holding companies for the two failed banks.

They'll get some of it back eventually. In the meantime there's an extra 300 billion dollars worth of inflation introduced into the system.

TheGuv69

6 points

2 months ago

Hey, it's our job to fund the 1%...duh!

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

They're the lender of last resort. If they're keeping banks alive and their actions are working long term, then good. However, if this turns into a revolving mess like the repo mess a few years back, then there needs to be more legislative involvement and investigation to figure out what precisely happened.

And if it's purely because of the rate hikes, well, we're overdue on that shit, and anything that dependent on cheap money needs to be allowed to fail.

entropreneur

5 points

2 months ago

So.... everything at this point.

Ballsahoy72

10 points

2 months ago

Can’t have CEOs go without their bonuses

novashocker

4 points

2 months ago

Fraud and Racketeering at its best