forums

Off-Topic Stock Market & Crypto Discussion

Advertisement
CFLCane said:
I don't know why your panties are so twisted you're the one who tried to place blame on the 2008 admin. I merely showed you who loosened the regs. Who's the one being partisan?
Click to expand...
That's how you see it. I clearly said in the wake of 2008. There have been 3 different administration's since. You tried to put the blame on one.
 
JD08 said:
That's how you see it. I clearly said in the wake of 2008. There have been 3 different administration's since. You tried to put the blame on one.
Click to expand...
Without being partisan the facts are. 1 party signed frank dodd into law. 1 party crippled it. And there has only been 2 administrations since.
 
Last edited:
CFLCane said:
Without being partisan the facts are. 1 party signed frank dodd into law. 1 party crippled it. And there has only been 2 administrations since.
Click to expand...
Please explain what Trump rolled back that would have prevented this and why, if that was so bad, it wasn't put back in place when the Biden admin had control of both the House and Senate.

Or, instead of trying to use this to blame one side, you could agree that our government has once again failed us.
 
JD08 said:
Please explain what Trump rolled back that would have prevented this and why, if that was so bad, it wasn't put back in place when the Biden admin had control of both the House and Senate.

Or, instead of trying to use this to blame one side, you could agree that our government has once again failed us.
Click to expand...
I already did that in this post below. Regulators failed in this instance but SVB would've been under far more scrutiny under the original dodd/frank provisions. It's certainly possible regulators could've failed at that too but less likely.

 
This isnt rocket science or a massive cover up. Lots of blame to pass around, a Federal government that cant stop spending, a Fed that was late to increase and had to do so rapidly, and poor, maybe even negligent management, regulators, external and internal auditors, etc.
 
Advertisement
Do these “bailouts” give the FED enough leeway to increase.25 in March if core cpi is still hot?
 
Last edited:
90scane said:
www.nbcnews.com

U.S. moves to protect all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank in bid to stem wider fallout

After shutting down one of the tech industry’s top banks Friday, federal authorities took extraordinary steps to head off a broader financial crisis before markets reopened for Monday trading.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Corruption supported! Sad
Click to expand...

Many of those securities have fallen in value as the Fed has raised interest rates. The terms would allow banks to borrow at 100 cents on the dollar for securities trading potentially well below that value, potentially putting the government at risk of losses incurred by banks. Critics said the move would essentially offer a backdoor subsidy to bank investors and management for failing to properly manage interest-rate risks.

Those terms are more generous than typical emergency bank loans of up to 90 days offered through the Fed’s main “discount window” borrowing program. The program could signal that banks that face withdrawals won’t have to liquidate securities and take losses to raise cash.
 
CFLCane said:
Well you're not, but enjoy that fence post.
Click to expand...
1678709260808.png

CFLCane said:
I already did that in this post below. Regulators failed in this instance but SVB would've been under far more scrutiny under the original dodd/frank provisions. It's certainly possible regulators could've failed at that too but less likely.

Click to expand...
 
Advertisement
CFLCane said:
Again, the level of scrutiny would have been much higher under the original bill. Not the stadium security pat down that seems to be happening now.
Click to expand...
Again, the regulators failed. Again, there were opportunities to reinstate the regulations.

You're still seeing this through a partisan lens. The point is that leadership failed us at every turn. That could be by removing regulations or failing to put them in place if necessary. The simple fact is there were some measures in place to supposedly prevent this and the regulators failed to properly do their job. Would it have mattered what regulations were in place if the regulators are too incompetent to follow them? There is a single point of failure here and the lack of redundancy and checks and balances should be disturbing to anyone not looking for a partisan axe to grind.

The people responsible for ensuring the integrity of our banking system are not doing so.
 
JD08 said:
Again, the regulators failed. Again, there were opportunities to reinstate the regulations.

You're still seeing this through a partisan lens. The point is that leadership failed us at every turn. That could be by removing regulations or failing to put them in place if necessary. The simple fact is there were some measures in place to supposedly prevent this and the regulators failed to properly do their job. Would it have mattered what regulations were in place if the regulators are too incompetent to follow them? There is a single point of failure here and the lack of redundancy and checks and balances should be disturbing to anyone not looking for a partisan axe to grind.

The people responsible for ensuring the integrity of our banking system are not doing so.
Click to expand...
BOOM!
 
Shhhhh!!! Hear that? It's the deafening silence of all those L1beRtAriaNs in Silicon Valley. Government shouldn't pick winners and loserssss derp derp derppppp!!!!

Kinda cute how Peter Thiel's fund somehow managed to pull all of their money out before SVB's collapse too. That dude has perfect timing- almost akin to someone that would be pumping up crypto to the dupes of the public as he's dumping it all himself.
 
Back
Top