Gavin Newsome is one of the SVB bailout recipients

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

ON MONDAY, California Gov. Gavin Newsom praised the Biden administration's decision to intervene on behalf of Silicon Valley Bank's clients after the bank was taken over by the FDIC on Friday amid a bank run. The White House "acted swiftly and decisively to protect the American economy and strengthen public confidence in our banking system," Newsom said in a statement. What Newsom didn't mention is that it also protected his own companies if they held over $250,000 in deposits. CADE, Odette, and PlumpJack, three wineries owned by Newsom, are listed as clients of SVB on the bank's website. Newsom also maintained personal accounts at SVB for years, according to a longtime former employee of Newsom's who handled his finances, and who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

Posted by Bluewaffles at 04:57 PM | 134 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

END;

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

You can't make this shit up lol.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Imagine, bailouts that benefit the already rich.

This is literally the first time it's happened!

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 05:16 PM | Reply

Snoofy, I thought the Democratic Party on the whole was for the under dog? Not rich white bros in the Bay Area?

#2 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 06:07 PM | Reply

People that have money in a failed bank deserve to get their money back.

I assume in Russia you just keep your rubles under your mattress.

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-03-14 06:12 PM | Reply

Legally, glad to see they let you out of the rubber room for computer-time. It's called privately insuring everything over 250k. There are plenty of Financial institutions that do this. My question is why didn't SVB?

#4 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 06:25 PM | Reply

#2 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

That would make you naive, to say the least.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-14 07:00 PM | Reply

Oh no someone didn't lose everything when a bank collapsed however shall we survive?

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2023-03-14 07:06 PM | Reply

Tor had $$$ in SVB lol

#7 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 07:18 PM | Reply

@#2 ... I thought the Democratic Party on the whole was for the under dog? Not rich white bros in the Bay Area? ...

Usually, the Democratic Party represents those who your comment tries to characterize as "the under dog." There are exceptions, much discussed here on this most august site, btw.

But why does your comment then go on to extrapolate that into... "rich white bros in the Bay Area?"

And if you want to talk about the federal government trying to stabilize the banking system by bailing out "rich white bros" maybe we should include fmr Pres G.W. Bush's bailout of Wall Street in 2008. That bailout makes anything happening with SVB seem like pocket change....

But back to the main point your comments seem to be pushing...

Why do you seem to proffer that SVB was helped by the Feds because a customer was Gov Newsome?

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 07:58 PM | Reply

Tor had $$$ in SVB lol

#7 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Why are you laughing when Trump caused this?

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-03-14 08:34 PM | Reply

He didn't cause SVB to collapse.

#10 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 08:37 PM | Reply

Imagine, bailouts that benefit the already rich.
This is literally the first time it's happened
#1 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Its not a bailout. The banks pay into a rainy day fund.

#11 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 08:38 PM | Reply

Will his wife return the money the bank used to buy influence, they don't need it now and it didn't help?

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2023-03-14 08:41 PM | Reply

But why does your comment then go on to extrapolate that into... "rich white bros in the Bay Area?" ~ Lamplighter

Why wouldn't it? 97% of the accounts had more than 250K in them.

Asians don't use SVB. POC? Startups? Very few. That was the whole point of the DEI/ESG.

See if they were balanced they wouldn't need it. But they weren't and had to look good.

My question is why do you NOT extrapolate that to be the case?

#13 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 08:43 PM | Reply

@#13 ... Why wouldn't it? 97% of the accounts had more than 250K in them.

Asians don't use SVB. POC? Startups? Very few. That was the whole point of the DEI/ESG. ...

Wow, your current alias really needs to get a grip. it seems to have, like Norfolk Southern, gone off the rails.

In other words, wtf is your current alias talking about?

Hint: if your current alias wants to be taken more seriously, then try posting substantiated assertions, not drivel.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 08:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#13 ... My question is why do you NOT extrapolate that to be the case? ...

My response: extrapolate what? A bunch of drivel?

I mean really.

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 08:53 PM | Reply

-97% of the accounts had more than 250K in them.

No ----?

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2023-03-14 08:55 PM | Reply

@#16 ... No ----? ...

Yeah.

Many of the startups in the area had money there.

Watch Stocks Exposed to SVB as US Pledges to Protect Deposits
au.finance.yahoo.com

...Shares of technology companies with money at Silicon Valley Bank may be active after US authorities pledged to fully protect all depositors' funds following the collapse of the lender.

Dozens of companies have reported exposure to the bank, which in its four-decade history cultivated deep ties within the tech sector. The Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Sunday jointly announced efforts aimed at strengthening confidence in the banking system in the wake of SVB's failure.

Roku Inc. is among those reporting the heaviest exposure. The maker of set-top boxes used for streaming film and television, had $487 million, or about a quarter of its cash and cash equivalents held at the bank. The disclosure late on Friday sent the stock down 3% in after-hours trading.

Rocket Lab USA Inc., a space launch startup, said it had about $38 million of cash and cash equivalents at SVB. Meanwhile, video-game company Roblox Corp. had about $150 million of its $3 billion in cash and securities at the bank.

Here's a look at many of the companies that have disclosed exposure to Silicon Valley Bank:...

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 09:07 PM | Reply

@#17

Now, if you want to talk about bailing out companies for deposits that were not FDIC-insured, I'm all in for that. As I was in 2008.

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 09:09 PM | Reply

Lamp ... I was very much so against the Bank bailouts in 08. I absolutely detested the Bush admin as a whole (which I've mentioned here in the past). No Bank big or small should be getting bailed out by the Federal Govt and that's a stance I'm proud to say I've had my entire adult life.
Case in point, my grandmother who wasn't a millionaire would regularly have me ride along with her on bank day as a child where I kid you not we would hit 10 different banks for her deposits because of this exact situation and that was when FDIC was only 100k.
If these tech bros and Gov Newsome were/are the smartest folks in America, how could they be effing dumb with their money?

#19 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 09:52 PM | Reply

@#19 ... If these tech bros and Gov Newsome were/are the smartest folks in America, how could they be effing dumb with their money? ...

For starters, why does your current alias seem to call out Gov Newsome?

That aside...

The "tech bros" had confidence in our banking system. Did they suspect the management of a bank to engage in risky investments to back up the deposits?

OK, and this is what caught my eye...

The bank seems to have invested in US bonds to back up their deposits. The problem with investing in bonds is that their price is volatile in the short term, but at the end of the bond's term, you get your money back + interest.

Now the problem arose when customers wanted to cash out of their deposits, and SVB had to redeem the bonds for the current price, not the end-of-term price.

Since the interest rates are so high of late, the price of the bonds is low. And SVB could not cover the deposits.

Problem.

So, if you want to blame an entity for causing the SVB crisis, blame the fed for raising interest rates in order to try to tame inflation and the management of the bank for not realizing what was happening with bonds.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 10:03 PM | Reply

@#20

Oh wait, maybe the bank management did know...

SVB collapse: CEO cashed out millions while employees got bonuses
www.washingtonexaminer.com

...Silicon Valley Bank CEO Greg Becker cashed out stock options in the weeks leading up to Friday's collapse, netting him a $2.27 million profit, public filings reveal. ...

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 10:06 PM | Reply

It was Trump that did away with the need to do stress testing where this would have been caught. SVB stopped and kept lower reserves than were dictated under Dodd-Frank. The one organization that is not at fault is the Fed, IMHO.

To be more blunt, "SVB CEO Greg Becker lobbied the government to relax some Dodd-Frank provisions on regional lenders in 2015. Trump did in 2018."

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-14 10:21 PM | Reply

Peter Thiel seemed to put two and two together and got his money out. That aside ... None of them bothered doing their due diligence and that's on them. Besides, there's another much larger diversified bank in the Bay Area (cough Wells Fargo) and while they may have their own issues at least they know not to buy 10 year bonds in a rising interest rate environment.

In fact, it seems every top 20 Bank somehow knew not to do precisely what SVB did. But when you have a Board that only has one banker and the rest are card carrying leftists ... Perhaps that's the problem?

www.dailymail.co.uk

#23 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kind of makes you wonder who holds/ who is the exit liquidity on any 10yr+ long term bond.

#24 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2023-03-14 10:25 PM | Reply

To be more blunt, "SVB CEO Greg Becker lobbied the government to relax some Dodd-Frank provisions on regional lenders in 2015. Trump did in 2018."

So?

#25 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:28 PM | Reply

Look up savings and loan crisis.

We are repeating it. GS was in place didn't matter, because treasuries are/ were low risk.

#26 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:31 PM | Reply

Clearly it's way beyond your ability to comprehend, so no reason to waste time with you.

#27 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-14 10:31 PM | Reply

#21 everyone knew, jan 18th call to investors laid it out clearly.

#28 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:32 PM | Reply

#27 because you can't.

#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:33 PM | Reply

Inflation and lack of Fed to respond in a measured way. Instead claimed it was transitory.

Don't think SVB is a one off, two other banks have been closed

#30 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:35 PM | Reply

@#23 ... Peter Thiel seemed to put two and two together and got his money out. ...

Yup, there were warnings. As I noted, that is not a surprise.

Even the CEO of SVB seems to have seen it coming and cashed out his stock in SVB.

... None of them bothered doing their due diligence and that's on them. ...

Their due diligence in putting their money in, or taking their money out? Mr Thiel apparently did his due diligence when he deposited money in SVB. So, your comment seems to imply that he thought SVB was a good bank.

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 10:40 PM | Reply

@#30 ... Inflation and lack of Fed to respond in a measured way. Instead claimed it was transitory. ...

"measured way"

What would your current alias call a "measured way" and why?

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 10:42 PM | Reply

Lindy Li
@lindyli

26m
Ivanka Trump was on Signature Bank's Board

It collapsed

Trump donor Peter Thiel sparked the SVB bank run

It collapsed

Deutsche Bank loaned money to Trump when no one else would

It's been exposed as a Russian money launderer

This is what happens when you sleep with the devil

#33 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2023-03-14 10:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What would your ONLY alias call a "measured way" and why?

Measured means less rate of change over time, but still an increasing the rate to fight inflation. Instead they played politics with inflation to spare JBiden by calling it "transitory".

The banks were purchased/holding on to these Treasuries as part of their requirements (not a bad thing). The treasuries have time frames, so while the interest rate goes up, it makes "money" harder to comeby, ergo the "depositors" were using what was in the bank. To meet the needs of these depositors/creditors the had to sell the T's at a loss. Eventually the music chairs ended.

A slower increase in the rate, and the bank can continue to sell but not at such a big loss.

This isn't a one off, again checkout the Savings and Loan crisis of the 80s/90s. Same problem

Moody's sees harder times ahead for all US banks and puts six on downgrade' watch
www.cnn.com

#34 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:50 PM | Reply

Mr Thiel apparently did his due diligence when he deposited money in SVB. So, your comment seems to imply that he thought SVB was a good bank.

During a call with SVB, they couldn't get transfer capital.

Theil's Founders Fund asked portfolio companies to begin moving funding to SVB. Founders realized that technical problems were delaying the transfer, at that point they realized something was wrong with SVB.

#35 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 10:55 PM | Reply

@#34 ... The banks were purchased/holding on to these Treasuries as part of their requirements (not a bad thing). The treasuries have time frames ...

Yup.

For all the sand your current alias kicks up, there is a grain or two that is appropriate.

As I noted in my #20, treasuries are good for the term of the treasuries, but less than good in a shorter term.

So, aside from spending lots of words to confirm something I had already stated, what's yer point?

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:01 PM | Reply

@#35 ... During a call with SVB, they couldn't get transfer capital.

If that is correct (i.e., I see no link...)

What is the point?

#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:02 PM | Reply

Apropos?

Who knows, but a fun tune nonetheless...

Stranglers - Skin Deep
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt...

www.azlyrics.com

...
Many people tell you that they're your friend
You believe them
You need them
For what's round the river bend
Make sure that you're recieving the signals they send
Cos brother, you've only got two hands to lend

Maybe there's someone who makes you weep
And some nights loom up ahead
When you're asleep
Some days there's things on your mind you should keep
Sometimes, it's tougher to look than to leap

Better watch out for the skin deep
Better watch out for the skin deep
(Better watch out) Watch out for the skin deep
(Better watch out) Watch out for the skin deep
Better watch out for the skin deep
...

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:06 PM | Reply

What is the point?
#37 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The point of what?

A delay in transfer? Well my understanding is the funds were going from one account within SVB and into another. Remember SVB was investing in these investors.

If SVB "transferred" the funds and didn't have the "funds" it would be fraud. So SVB was executing sales (at a loss probably), and then fulfilling he request.

#39 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:08 PM | Reply

@#39 ... The point of what? ...

The point of your #35 comment about Mr Thiel.

... During a call with SVB, they couldn't get transfer capital. ...

Yeah, that's known now.

I've stated (more than once) that SVB's reliance upon bonds has been an issue.

So, I'll ask once again... what is the point of your #35.

Is your current alias just trying to drag this conversation lower in to a repetition of what has already been stated?

In other words, trolling seems to be a thing for your current alias.

Why not try to break out of that paradigm?

imho, of course...

#40 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:15 PM | Reply

Rein I'll give you the opportunity to admit you lied about Ivanka being on Signature's Board when it failed. Would you like to walk that comment back?

#41 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 11:19 PM | Reply

Here's a good graph of the banking situation in the US
twitter.com

#42 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:26 PM | Reply

The point of your #35 comment about Mr Thiel.

He thought it was good until it wasn't.

#43 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:27 PM | Reply

In other words, trolling seems to be a thing for your current alias.

And gaslighting is a thing for your current alias.

#44 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"calling it "transitory".

Is that incorrect?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:33 PM | Reply

@#43 .. He thought it was good until it wasn't. ...

That's what I stated.

So, again, what's yer point?

#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:34 PM | Reply

@#44 ... And gaslighting is a thing for your current alias. ...

Yeah, your current alias one of two that have hurled that accusation at me. :)

Do try harder.

#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:36 PM | Reply

Is that incorrect?
#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Isn't it? What is your period for "transitory"? Yellen stated it would be over by the end of 2021. Was she correct or incorrect?

#48 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:36 PM | Reply

Yeah, your current alias one of two that have hurled that accusation at me. :)

Then I would also say you are a gaslighter and paranoid.

#49 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:37 PM | Reply

"What is your period for "transitory"?

I don't have one. I think it's a meaningless comment; purposefully vague. You had a strong opinion about it, though.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:38 PM | Reply

I don't have one.

Then how could it be incorrect or correct? Why ask?

I think it's a meaningless comment; purposefully vague

It has a definition.

You had a strong opinion about it, though.

So do economists, that's why they say it.

#51 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:41 PM | Reply

"Then how could it be incorrect or correct? Why ask?"

To expose your fraud.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:42 PM | Reply

"It has a definition."

It does.

"What is your period for "transitory"?

You don't have one either.

This is the fraud I'm talking about.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:42 PM | Reply

Since Rein went into hiding ... here's Signature's current board:

investor.signatureny.com

Def don't see Ivanka's name there.

#54 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-14 11:42 PM | Reply

What Is Transitory Inflation?
www.forbes.com

#55 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:43 PM | Reply

"The American Institute of Economic Research defined transitory inflation as a rate of inflation that does not remain high permanently. In some cases, the temporary high inflation rate is followed by a period of lower inflation."

So.

Is it transitory?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:44 PM | Reply

You don't have one either.

But Yellen did, and thats the "transitory" I was talking about, it didn't happen.

This is the fraud I'm talking about.

Where were you talking about fraud? You were discussing a definition and there is one.

#57 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:44 PM | Reply

@#55

From the article cited in #55...

... Transitory inflation is a term that was widely used in 2021 ...

Yeah... and?

#58 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:45 PM | Reply

So you're saying inflation remains high permanently.

Well, you're wrong.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:46 PM | Reply

Is it transitory?
#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The concept of transitory inflation was used to describe price gains that were expected to be temporary and not part of a long-term trend.

Not according to the definition, the current inflation is permanent.

#60 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:46 PM | Reply

So you're saying inflation remains high permanently.

No, I am saying its part of a long term trend.

#61 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:48 PM | Reply

Oneironaut has absolutely no idea what he's furiously googling.

#62 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-03-14 11:49 PM | Reply

@#57 ... thats the "transitory" I was talking about, it didn't happen. ...

Your current alias talks about a lot of things. Sometimes relevant, oftentimes just a deflection.

So, now that your current alias has posted a link about "transitory inflation," how does that relate to SVB and Gov Newsome?

#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:49 PM | Reply

So, now that your current alias has posted a link about "transitory inflation," how does that relate to SVB and Gov Newsome?

Weren't you talking about the SVB explosion due to bonds?

How can you not understand? If it was transitory inflation SVB would still be around.

Aren't you an engineer?

#64 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:50 PM | Reply

"With transitory inflation, price levels don't continue to increase at the same rate. Eventually, the increase is slowed. That doesn't mean prices return to pre-inflation levels; the prices of consumer goods are still high, just the rate of change in inflation decreases."

You don't think that's what's happening?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:51 PM | Reply

@#60 ... Not according to the definition, the current inflation is permanent. ...

OK, a couple of links are needed.

1) what is "the definition" of which your current alias speaks?

2) why is the current inflation permanent?

Yer up...

#66 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:51 PM | Reply

1) what is "the definition" of which your current alias speaks?

Posed it uptheard

2) why is the current inflation permanent?

Its long term because of our outstanding debt.

#67 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:52 PM | Reply

Here's a link regarding #2

Why central banks are too powerful and have created our inflation crisis
theconversation.com

#68 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:54 PM | Reply

"Its long term"

That's not the same as permanent.

It's such a vague definition as to be useless.

That's why they used it.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:55 PM | Reply

@#62 .... Oneironaut has absolutely no idea what he's furiously googling....

That seems to be my opinion as well.

But at times I tend to humor that alias because I've written a new script on a server, and I am waiting for the script to finish.

So... while I wait, well, shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind....

#70 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:55 PM | Reply

----------, Signature bank cut ties with the child-raping orange jizzfart and his crotch fruit after you dirtbags attacked DC.

#71 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2023-03-14 11:56 PM | Reply

"inflation crisis"

This crisis seems like it only affects banks that didn't think inflation would go up so much.

Is that enough of them for the banking system to collapse?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-14 11:56 PM | Reply

You don't think that's what's happening?

Do you?

This is a contextomy. Again we go back to long-term being part of the definition. We are looking at almost 48 months of inflation, and I expect it to continue because the Fed has been slow to pull the trigger, wasting time thinking it was transitory.

Until the jobs number drops inflation will continue as I understand it.

#73 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:57 PM | Reply

@#67 ... Posed it uptheard ...

Your current has posted lots of things upthread.

Got a comment number?

... Its long term because of our outstanding debt. ...

Once again, got a link? Or even an attempted explanation?

#74 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-14 11:59 PM | Reply

This crisis seems like it only affects banks that didn't think inflation would go up so much.
Is that enough of them for the banking system to collapse?

#72 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Depends upon the requirements of the banks, but in general safe banks invest in treasuries (low risk). See the graph above regarding returns on low risk treasuries. Raise rates too fast and all the sudden they are in trouble, selling at a loss to make creditors/depositors whole.

#75 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-14 11:59 PM | Reply

It's okay Rein, just admit you lied and all will be okay. I'll even take that you "misspoke" if that's better for your feels.

#76 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-15 12:01 AM | Reply

Once again, got a link? Or even an attempted explanation?

#55
Once again, got a link? Or even an attempted explanation?

#68

#77 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:01 AM | Reply

@#72 ... This crisis seems like it only affects banks that didn't think inflation would go up so much. ...

Yup, that seems to be an issue with SVB's management.

Time Zone - World Destruction
www.youtube.com

#78 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:02 AM | Reply

Is that enough of them for the banking system to collapse?

See #42

Its not the inflation, its the feds response.

IMO the fed is in a no win situation. Either it raises rates to cut inflation and causes banks to fail, OR it doesn't raise rates and inflation continues with all its downsides.

#79 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:04 AM | Reply

@#75 ... but in general safe banks invest in treasuries (low risk) ...

The issue is how they invest in treasuries.

See #20 comment on this thread.

#80 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:05 AM | Reply

@#72 ... This crisis seems like it only affects banks that didn't think inflation would go up so much. ...

Again look up the SavingsAndLoan debacle. The Fed rate affects all sorts of financial instruments.

#81 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:05 AM | Reply

----------, just admit Ivanka was on the board at Signature Bank.

#82 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2023-03-15 12:06 AM | Reply

The issue is how they invest in treasuries.

No, the issue is the Fed needs to telegraph its changes and take a measured approach.

See graph in #55.

#83 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:07 AM | Reply

Sorry graph in #42

#84 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:09 AM | Reply

@#77 ... Once again, got a link? Or even an attempted explanation?

#55
Once again, got a link? Or even an attempted explanation?
...

I'm not sure what your comment is replying to.

#55 was your current alias' comment. are you replying to your current alias' comments now ?

#85 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:09 AM | Reply

The issue for the Fed if it takes this steep approach, is no one will buy the Treasuries knowing they would be junk in a year.

#86 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:10 AM | Reply

"The Fed rate affects all sorts of financial instruments."

Banks shouldn't be exposing depositor accounts to that kind of risk.

That's the opposite of a bank.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#85 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Your inability to look up thread and align your comments with the posts isn't my problem.

#88 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:11 AM | Reply

@#79 ... MO the fed is in a no win situation. Either it raises rates to cut inflation and causes banks to fail ...

Why does increasing rates cause banks to fail?

Yeah, aside from poorly managed banks, like SVB seems to be...

#89 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:11 AM | Reply

Banks shouldn't be exposing depositor accounts to that kind of risk.

Agreed. If you look at GlassSteagle originally it was this. 0% interest.

Eventually they were allowed to invest in low-risk Treasuries.

Eventually the terminology went from Depositor to Creditor, then GS was repealed and things have gone south.

GS needs to be reinstated at least. BUT that's not why SVB happened. Other financial instruments were the typical loans an old school back would make Cars, personal, etc.

#90 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:13 AM | Reply

Why does increasing rates cause banks to fail?

It doesn't its not the increase, its the rate of increase. See graph up thread.

#91 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:14 AM | Reply

"Banks shouldn't be exposing depositor accounts to that kind of risk."
"Agreed."

Okay so then it's not Biden's fault.
It's the banks fault.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:14 AM | Reply

These are the same "banks" who advise us to have six months expenses on hand in case of a financial emergency.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:15 AM | Reply

@#86 ... The issue for the Fed if it takes this steep approach, is no one will buy the Treasuries knowing they would be junk in a year. ...

Those who buy Treasuries and expect that "investment" to pay off in a year deserve what they get.

Treasuries are good for their term, not a year. (one-year Treasuries excluded).

That is the issue that SVB seemed to have had. They bought longer-term treasuries and were hurt when , in the short term, the value of those treasuries declined.

So.. where is the problem here? The treasuries, or those who buy them with, let's just say, expectations of value that may not be justified?

#94 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:16 AM | Reply

Okay so then it's not Biden's fault.
It's the banks fault.
#92 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You need to think bigger, we are in this together. The country R's D's made all sorts of errors. Inflation is high because of things that happened 30years ago.

If you are just looking for blame, then blame yourself.

#95 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:17 AM | Reply

Those who buy Treasuries and expect that "investment" to pay off in a year deserve what they get.

Sure, but if the FED behaves erradically people won't buy the Treasuries, then the US Gov defaults

#96 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:18 AM | Reply

Speaking of pay off in a year, I bonds pay 6.89% right now.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:19 AM | Reply

"You need to think bigger, we are in this together."

The banks need to think bigger.
My thinking is fiscally sound.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:20 AM | Reply

Treasuries are good for their term, not a year. (one-year Treasuries excluded).

What does "good for their term" mean? relatively the can be better or worse than other Treasuries, depends upon inflation and the FED rate.

#99 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:21 AM | Reply

My thinking is fiscally sound.
#98 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You aren't taking responsibility for your countries issues. You want to blame or NOT blame, someone.

This is a dysfunction.

#100 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:23 AM | Reply

@#88 ... Your inability to look up thread and align your comments with the posts isn't my problem. ...

OK, so your current alias seems to say that it will not point to a reference of a prior comment that it had made.

A reference made in a nebulous comment, referring to some random prior comment.

And then your current alias tries to blame that lack of substantiation upon me.

I mean how difficult would it have been for your current alias to go back and say, comment #nn was what I was referring to?

Really. Is that so tough?

That leads me towards... thanks for confirming for me that my opinion that your current alias is little more than a troll...

Yer up...

#101 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:23 AM | Reply

Speaking of pay off in a year, I bonds pay 6.89% right now.

This is good. But I think that is the inflation rate this year.

#102 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:23 AM | Reply

#101 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER A

I have offered links, not sure what else you want? Can't sit there and spoon feed you.

#103 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:24 AM | Reply

@#95 ... we are in this together ...

Who, exactly, is the "we" of which your current alias' comment speaks?

Please be specific.

thx.

#104 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:24 AM | Reply

I mean how difficult would it have been for your current alias to go back and say, comment #nn was what I was referring to?

I did there's a post specifically outlining thread numbers. You chose to whine it didn't meet your formatting.

I can't helo the helpless.

#105 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:26 AM | Reply

Please be specific.

Americans

#106 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 12:27 AM | Reply

@#99 ... What does "good for their term" mean? ...

Simply, at the end of the term, you get your money back, plus the interest that you bought into when you originally purchased those treasuries.

#107 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:27 AM | Reply

"You aren't taking responsibility for your countries issues."

My country isn't a bank. I'm not going to take responsibility for what Capitalists do. I will suffer the consequences nonetheless, but I'm not the one doing it.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:28 AM | Reply

Don't worry Rein, I threw up a new entry just for you ;D

#109 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-03-15 12:29 AM | Reply

@#106 ... Americans ...

And what evidence does your current alias have to proffer that it speaks for Americans?

#110 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:30 AM | Reply

@#105 .. I did there's a post specifically outlining thread numbers. ...

Yet your comment does not say the number of that post that it found. Why?

Apparently, your current alias seems to be here more to troll than to be informative.

I mean, your current alias found a relevant post, but chose to attack instead of inform.

#111 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:32 AM | Reply

@#108 "You aren't taking responsibility for your countries issues."

I had missed that in that alias' #100 comment.

That adds a whole new context to the conversation I am attempting.

thx.

#112 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-15 12:35 AM | Reply

This is good. But I think that is the inflation rate this year.

Nope. It's higher than inflation by about 1%.

#113 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 07:58 AM | Reply

Correction:
This is good. But I think that is the inflation rate this year.
Nope. It's higher than inflation by about 1%.

#114 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 07:59 AM | Reply

It was Trump

#22 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2023-03-14 10:21 PM | FLAG:

It was a bipartisan Congressional vote that Trump then signed.

If you ask Barney Frank, stress testing didn't cause this.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-03-15 08:27 AM | Reply

You do know Barney Frank was on the SVB Board before and through their collapse, right?
You do know that Barney Frank did, finally in the interview, conceded that more regulation was needed, right?
I have no doubt stress testing could have indicated issues with SVB's strategy.
I don't really care what Frank says in this regard, nor do I consider an "appeal to authority" a legitimate argument.

#116 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 08:40 AM | Reply

"Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank aggressively lobbied for the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The 2018 law exempted them from stringent stress testing and capital requirements in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that were implemented in response to the financial crisis.

The banking bill made it so that SVB did not have to undergo stress testing that measures the bank's ability to withstand an economic downturn or other shocks. The Fed's most recent stress test " which involved 33 large banks " found that all of the banks had the resources to stay afloat."

BTW - It'd enjoy a link to Frank saying anything about stress testing wrt SVB. Can you provide one? I do know he was on the board and lobbied to have restrictions loosened. As far as him saying anything specifically since of in the defense of not performing stress testing I must have missed it.

thehill.com

#117 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 08:51 AM | Reply

2) why is the current inflation permanent?
Its long term because of our outstanding debt.

We have inflation because the economy is way hotter than expected and we haven't been able to cool it off as easily as people thought would happen.

We haven't had inflation in decades while we continued to build outstanding debt.
Here are countries where the debt to GDP ratios are the highest:
Venezuela - 350%
Japan - 266%
Sudan - 259%
Greece - 206%
Lebanon - 172%
Cabo-Verde - 157%
Italy - 156%
Libya - 155%
Portugal - 134%
Singapore - 131%
Bahrain - 128%
United-States - 128%

Here are the nations where inflation is highest:
Argentina - 102
Turkey - 55.18
Russia - 11
United Kingdom - 10.1
Italy - 9.2
Germany - 8.7
Euro Area - 8.5
Mexico - 7.62
Netherlands - 8
Australia - 7.8
South Africa - 6.9
India - 6.44

There is only one match between the two lists - Italy.

#118 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 09:09 AM | Reply

#118

We are the reserve currency.

Everyone trading in dollars will see inflation.

#119 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 09:15 AM | Reply

How the United States is exporting inflation to other countries
www.cnn.com

Everything the US does affects other economies, they are not independent of each other, some will make mistakes others will be better. In the end the main driver is US policy.

#120 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 09:32 AM | Reply

You asserted one thing, now you respond with something unrelated. You have no logical consistency. When your argument is shown to be incorrect, you deflect with something else. "And gaslighting is a thing for your current alias" as is PROJECTION.

#121 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 09:47 AM | Reply

Rate changes are due to the inflation caused by nation debt in fiat currency .

Inflation is a form of default.
www.nationalaffairs.com

You think I am critical of Biden, this is why you defend. If it were a gop you'd yell it's their fault.

My argument at it's core is the system we have built is failing.

#122 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 09:57 AM | Reply

#121 to be clear it's all inter-related. It's not a static system.

#123 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-03-15 09:58 AM | Reply

You think I am critical of Biden, this is why you defend. If it were a gop you'd yell it's their fault.

So now you have to resort assigning me motive. Great.

#124 | Posted by YAV at 2023-03-15 10:03 AM | Reply

" So now you have to resort assigning me motive. Great.

#124 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2023-03-15 10:03 AM | FLAG: "

It's a professional sport on this site.

#125 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-15 10:05 AM | Reply

It was Trump

#22 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2023-03-14 10:21 PM | FLAG:

It was a bipartisan Congressional vote that Trump then signed.

If you ask Barney Frank, stress testing didn't cause this.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks successfully lobbied Congress to be exempted from regulation in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that may have headed off a failure, some experts say. The exemptions were supported by Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, and signed into law by Trump in 2018.

#126 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-03-15 11:12 AM | Reply

"It was a bipartisan Congressional vote"

In real life, authors get a byline.

Who wrote it? And I don't care if it's Jamie Diamond or Jamie Raskin...who wrote it?

#127 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-15 11:23 AM | Reply

"signed into law by Trump in 2018."

Remember the Tip O'Neill Compromise?

Of course you don't. It's called The Reagan Revolution.

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-15 11:25 AM | Reply

They hired the best diversity employees they could find. They should have hired boomers we have experience with inflation.

#129 | Posted by visitor_ at 2023-03-15 11:33 AM | Reply

"2) why is the current inflation permanent?
Its long term because of our outstanding debt."

Congratulations, Republicans.
You Built That!

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 11:49 AM | Reply

#126 is called a fact and it comes from a publication that's not allowed on this site.

it's from a publication that when seen is met with "fake news" blah blah blah by most of you

proving that when it comes the news you're biased / bigoted and proud to be ignorant of current events.

happy ides of march.

#131 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-03-15 12:02 PM | Reply

SVB collapse was driven by the first Twitter-fueled bank run'
www.cnn.com
In the day leading up to the bank's collapse, multiple prominent venture capitalists took to Twitter in particular, and used their large platforms to raise alarms about the situation, sometimes typing in all caps. Some investors urged startups to rethink where they kept their cash. Founders and CEOs then shared tweets about the concerning situation at the bank in private Slack channels, according to The Wall Street Journal.
LOL

"What made the Silicon Valley Bank run unique was (1) the ease with which its customers could execute withdrawals and (2) the speed with which news of Silicon Valley Bank's impending demise spread," Ben Thompson, an analyst who tracks the tech industry, wrote in a post on Monday. "It was the speed, fueled by zero distribution costs for both rumors and withdrawals, that was so destabilizing."

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:06 PM | Reply

this bank fail...and others...will be the impetus for what democrats have had wet dreams about for years.

a nationalized bank system....controlled by them.

but I'm not going to worry too much....when that happens all of you will be screwed too.

you just don't know it yet.

#133 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-03-15 12:06 PM | Reply

"a nationalized bank system....controlled by them."

You're saying The Fed isn't already part of the George Soros Deep State?
LOL

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-15 12:07 PM | Reply