How is it that the deposits are *not* insured?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Is it because of the *type* of deposit?
This is very odd...
Printable View
How is it that the deposits are *not* insured?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Is it because of the *type* of deposit?
This is very odd...
It’s because most accounts there are much greater than 250k, and the deposited dollars above that amount are uninsured.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
You’re a VC backed company that just raised $30 million in a new round, you gotta put that cash somewhere.
Worse:Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/stat...39856924860416
Gotcha. Makes sense. So there may be some commercial customers in Silicon Valley that take quite a haircut, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
Ha! What a guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
It’s going to exacerbate the recent slowdown in the space too.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
Investors will need to decide whether to throw more money at backstopping the companies who lost their deposits. A bunch will die quickly, a few more will muddle through for a while but probably die before they can raise another round, and some will be saved.
A lot of the investor money is tied up in this as well. Dozens of VC firms hold their LP money in SVB.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
Jason Calacanis is doing a live update on YouTube about this- https://www.youtube.com/live/V7VniWpD0dw?feature=share
Sorry, who is bitching?
So if the math is correct, because it’s mostly a duration mismatch, depositors should actually be made whole or recover significant portions (95+ %) of the uninsured deposits eventually, it just might take too long for some.
They’ll see if they can get a buyer this weekend I assume
This fo sho.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
I’ve heard rumors most of the liquid stuff has already been sold by FDIC and significant chunk of recovery could happen by next weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
Right. It’s not as if the money is just gone, it’s that since a large portion of the deposits aren’t insured then in a run scenario 95% of people could be getting all their money back, and 5% get completely wiped out. Regulators needed to prevent that (maybe should have seen it earlier? I don’t know.)Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
Everyone taking a 5% haircut wouldn’t be catastrophic to the system. Not having access to funds for an extended timeframe could be.
You can hear Uncle Warren and Masa Son sharpening up their pencils as we speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
"The strangest thing happened..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Good luck to Ak and wife
Raising money for a SPAC to buy the assets out of receivership that will collapse 6 months later?Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
so who’s gonna buy twitter?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
Zhang YimingQuote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
CEO addressed the team an hour ago. Bunch of hot air nothing. “Hang tight team…..yada yada yada…… hope to figure something out….please stick around”
The news gives more details than SVB is giving staff. Seems standard unfortunately.
The Japanese own a ton of the debt and equity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Gotz
But I think it may go to an American bank….
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
The same CEO who unloaded 11% of his holdings at $ 280 per a "pre-planned" stock sale program. No doubt his thoughts and prayers will be with staffQuote:
Originally Posted by AK47bp
Total cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
My wife is (was) on the team that monitors employee trading and saw his transaction earlier.
Captain getting off before the ship sinks, leaving passengers and crew to fend for themselves. Tale as old as time.
The shitcan notice was just sent. 45 days payout at 1.5x salary and 2x hourly pay rate for non-exempt staff.
Not sure if they are expected to keep “working” for that period or what. More details later this weekend.
Good luck AK and the Mrs. Sorry to hear this happened to you.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzworthy
If you see my Billy Goats in gear swap you’ll know shit the fan.
Sorry to read about your situation...sucks to be on the receiving end of this nonsenseQuote:
Originally Posted by AK47bp
indeed - sorry AK - sending positive vibes your way for what it's worth
Best article I’ve found.
https://open.substack.com/pub/netint...utm_medium=web
Not previously knowing banks could take such risk I’m afraid others are sitting on unrealized losses they just haven’t been marked down yet.
What would make you think that? Because over the past 10 years a lot of safeguards were rolled back or ignored?Very odd that the website inserted the crap emojis where Larry Crapo's name appeared. But fittingQuote:
02/20/2018 05:01 AM EST
U.S. senators are planning to mark the 10th anniversary of Wall Street’s meltdown this year with a gift to the nation’s banks: a bill that would unravel regulations put in place after the crisis.
The proposed rollback of some key post-crisis rules – which could advance in the coming weeks – is one of the few examples of bipartisanship in Washington since President Donald Trump’s election.
Yet the bill is driving a wedge between Democrats and threatening to magnify the party’s divisions as it fights to win back Congress this year.
On one side are moderate Democrats such as Sens. Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester from Republican-leaning states who support the legislation because they say it will provide relief to small and regional banks and boost rural economies.
On the other are progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and their activist allies, who argue that the bill will put consumers at risk. They’re working to undercut the party’s centrists before the vote, with several of the moderates — as well as Brown — facing tough reelection campaigns this year.
That the legislation is coming a decade after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has fueled passions around the debate.
“I’m amazed that, on the 10th anniversary of the 2008 financial crisis, some Democrats are supporting the Trump administration and Senate Republicans on a bill to roll back the financial rules we put in place,” Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview.
The bill would scale back regulations that Democrats pushed through in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act — the sweeping statute that rewrote the rules of the financial industry and was one of President Barack Obama’s signature achievements.
Now lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say the landmark law should be recalibrated to ease restrictions on lenders, in particular the smallest banks that were not responsible for the worst excesses that led to the crisis.
For moderate Democrats from states that Donald Trump won in 2016, it’s a chance to show voters they can work with Republicans and help their local economies. Trump administration officials have been supportive of the Senate legislation.
The infighting isn’t expected to take down the bill, which probably has enough support to escape a filibuster, thanks to the 12 Democrats co-sponsoring the legislation. House Republicans, who have proposed more dramatic rollbacks, might pose a bigger hurdle. But the Senate floor debate could have repercussions in this year’s elections and beyond, as Democrats try to convince voters they can effectively oversee the economy.
Democrats who oppose the legislation are emboldened by the expectation that most of their caucus will be on their side.
Brown, who is leading efforts to undermine the bill as the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, said his party is “overwhelmingly against it.”
“I’ve talked to damn near everybody about this,” he said.
Brown says the bill’s backers are overselling its benefits to the smallest lenders and that easing rules for larger banks would threaten the economy.
“The public doesn’t want us to lay down for the banks,” he said. “The public doesn’t have collective amnesia about what happened 10 years ago like senators do.”
The legislation, approved by the Senate Banking Committee last year, has also racked up other critics among Democrats who have been floated as potential presidential contenders in 2020. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) say they will oppose it.
Yet as Brown leads the charge against the bill, he himself confronts tensions back home in Ohio over his role.
Ohio is the base of a substantial financial services industry, including big regional banks such as Fifth Third Bancorp and KeyCorp.
Regional banks have been lobbying for years for the legislation. The Senate bill would benefit them by raising a key threshold above which banks are subject to stricter regulation. The new trigger that banks would face under the bill is $250 billion in assets, up from $50 billion now. The higher bar for bank oversight would scale back requirements for many of the country’s largest financial institutions, such as BB&T, American Express and SunTrust.
The bill doesn’t do as much to roll back regulations for the biggest global banks based in the U.S., such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup.
Brown flirted with the idea of going along with the legislative package last year, but he was unable to reach agreement with Senate Banking Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
Warren, who is expected to easily win reelection this year and is seen as another 2020 presidential contender, may have more of a free hand in the debate to antagonize banks and the Democrats who back the bill.
She said the issue is “whether or not senators are on the side of protecting the economy and taxpayers or on the side of giant banks.”
“Remember Countrywide?” she said, referring to the mortgage lender that became synonymous with the crisis. “It was about $200 billion, which is smaller than some of the banks that will be deregulated by this bill. The heart of this bill is to take 30 of the 40 biggest banks in this country off the watch-list so that they can load up on risks again and if things go wrong put the American taxpayer back on the hook.”
Brown and Warren are backed by outside activists that are mobilizing to stop the bill from getting traction. They’re trying to make it politically painful for Democrats to stand up for it.
Indivisible, an increasingly influential liberal advocacy group that formed as part of the resistance to Trump’s election, has published a detailed script outlining how to rebut the bill in calls with Senate staffers.
Indivisible is also calling on its supporters to confront senators about the legislation during the congressional recess. In sample town hall questions, it suggests that voters ask Democratic senators whether they will commit to opposing “this Republican down payment on ending regulation of Wall street.”
Another progressive group, Demand Progress, has launched a social media campaign through its Rootstrikers arm identifying the bill’s Democratic co-sponsors as the "#BailoutCaucus.”
Public Citizen, the nonprofit consumer watchdog, has been making its case against the legislation on the Hill and by coordinating with allies in the states of Democrats who have co-sponsored the bill.
“We’re making it clear that there will be political consequences for being on the wrong side of this bill,” Demand Progress campaign director Kurt Walters said.
“We and others will then ramp up pressure on potential swing votes as necessary.”
Crapo says he hopes the Senate will take up the bill shortly after lawmakers return from their Presidents Day break. Congress left town for a weeklong recess Thursday without teeing up the legislation.
For the bill’s supporters, the focus is on maintaining the core group that has helped the rare bipartisan compromise advance this far.
“We have enough votes right now to pass it,” Heitkamp said. “I know there are people who would like to see 70-75 votes. Maybe we can’t get there, but we’ll continue to have the discussion.”
“Why is it a bad bill? Why is it dangerous?” Tester said in an interview, when asked about the opposition to the proposal. “We give relief to community banks.
“This should have been done years ago. ... This is going to allow for access to capital in rural areas like Montana,” he said. “I don’t get it.”
The problem with winning over more Democrats is that there is little room to negotiate among the coalition of supporters when it comes to making changes that newcomers might seek. That’s why the biggest threat to the bill’s passage is the House, where Republicans want to do much more to dismantle Dodd-Frank. For now, it’s unclear what they will try to add to the bill and whether Senate Democrats would go along with it.
“There is a rule, and this goes to working with the House as well: You don’t get to amend this thing unless we all agree,” Heitkamp said.
Trigger warning for byates and stalefish!
Krugman’s thoughts on SVB:
Attachment 451399
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/stat...sR_NcRK2VkCfkg
I’m agreeing with Krugman? Fuck time to find myself a cocktail.
Great article. If you haven’t, read that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Seriously. Monday will be a good day to snatch up some cheap bank stocksQuote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
FWIW - Vibes.....shit I take the day off to go harvest some March corn w my daughter who had day off skool and damn....Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47bp
Giannis knows what’s what.
Attachment 451410
Only 3 regionals really sold off yesterday (the debt anyway). First repub, western, signature. Most others were meh and jpm debt gained. The Canadian banks actually took a bit of a whack as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
We’ll see what happens come Monday but I’m sure they’re in a room right now “negotiating” over svb assets and deposits. Would Wells Fargo dare take a jump into the depositor base? And judging by who was buying the debt late yesterday afternoon I’m not sure BOA is getting it.
I think it's more likely an I bank buys up a bunch to juice access to startups.