Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 week - 30 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 55 Goods vs 12 No Goods

1. Economist
   0a77
   

   Europe’s financial regulators are furious at the handling of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, privately accusing US authorities of tearing up a rule book for failed banks that they had helped to write.

   While the disapproval has yet to be conveyed in a formal setting, some of the region’s top policymakers are seething over the decision to cover all depositors at SVB, fearing it will undermine a globally agreed regime.

   One senior eurozone official described their shock at the “total and utter incompetence” of US authorities, particularly after a decade and a half of “long and boring meetings” with Americans advocating an end to bailouts.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 1 Vlad !

2. Economist
   0a77
   

   The US has claimed SVB’s failure will not hit taxpayers because other banks will cover the cost of bailing out uninsured depositors — over and above what can be recouped from the lender’s assets.

   However, a European regulator said that claim was a “joke”, as US banks were likely to pass the cost on to their customers. “At the end of the day, this is a bailout paid for by the ordinary people and it’s a bailout of the rich venture capitalists which is really wrong,” he said.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   f3ab
   

   If it's not directly passed on to customers throgh bank fees it will be passed on as additional inflation through Fed money printing to back up the FDIC.

   The US has claimed SVB’s failure will not hit taxpayers because other banks will cover the cost of bailing out uninsured depositors — over and above what can be recouped from the lender’s assets.
   However, a European regulator said that claim was a “joke”, as US banks were likely to pass the cost on to their customers. “At the end of the day, this is a bailout paid for by the ordinary people and it’s a bailout of the rich venture capitalists which is really wrong,” he said.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   d37a
   

   Lol at Europeans thinking the US cares about their opinions.

   The US does what the US wants.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

5. Economist
   4891
   

   Putin laughing, gaining hope.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   5f2b
   

   crony capitalism at its finest. A fiekin joke of a country.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   a378
   

   Central banking is the greatest scam in history.

   End the Fed.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   7808
   

   Bitcoin

   1 week ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   d37a
   

   crony capitalism at its finest. A fiekin joke of a country.

   I'll throw the Euros a little bone here. After the 2008 crisis, the EU (which at the time included the UK lol) went through costly and politically difficult regulatory reform and signed new agreements to cooperate with regulators in the US and around the world. It was essentially an international treaty system on controlling financial system risk.

   Then B gets into the White House lolz and smears his dìrtỳ Dèpènds all over the internationally agreed rule book. More lolz because word gets around fast in the finance world and now every bank is going to demand ... you guessed it! More bailouts!

   Oh B you old rascal.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    53db
    

    Eurobro here. I don't get this attitude. If equity holders loose their money and depositors are shielded, what's the issue? Risk management is equity holders business, they affect the management. It's a good signal, strengthen it or loose your equity. What else is needed. What's the upside of depositors taking a hit?

    1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 5 Vlad !

11. Economist
    af29
    

    What do European regulators think about Credit Suisse?

    *crickets chirping*

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    e99e
    

    You have a very weird interpretation of the word "destroy" OP

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    d37a
    

    What do European regulators think about Credit Suisse?
    *crickets chirping*

    They think they're going to get a shedload of political pressure to print as much money as bank demand for bailouts.

    Gonna be hard to say no to that.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    0a77
    

    crony capitalism at its finest. A fiekin joke of a country.

    I'll throw the Euros a little bone here. After the 2008 crisis, the EU (which at the time included the UK lol) went through costly and politically difficult regulatory reform and signed new agreements to cooperate with regulators in the US and around the world. It was essentially an international treaty system on controlling financial system risk.
    Then B gets into the White House lolz and smears his dìrtỳ Dèpènds all over the internationally agreed rule book. More lolz because word gets around fast in the finance world and now every bank is going to demand ... you guessed it! More bailouts!
    Oh B you old rascal.

    "Never underestimate Joe's ability to fiek things up."

    -BO

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    d37a
    

    Eurobro here. I don't get this attitude. If equity holders loose their money and depositors are shielded, what's the issue? Risk management is equity holders business, they affect the management. It's a good signal, strengthen it or loose your equity. What else is needed. What's the upside of depositors taking a hit?

    For depositors, nil. They're outta luck. Too bad. Thanks for playing. You lose.

    For regulators, legal certainty. Giving a favor to one bank means the rest line up to demand the same treatment. It amps up the political pressure when the likes of Goldman Sachs and other top banks demand that the rules be ripped up on a whim. Then consider whether this sort of political situation has economic consequences.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

16. Economist
    f3ab
    

    Large depositors need to take a haircut when a bank fails or else they will be incentivized to put their money in the riskiest bank possible in the future.

    Eurobro here. I don't get this attitude. If equity holders loose their money and depositors are shielded, what's the issue? Risk management is equity holders business, they affect the management. It's a good signal, strengthen it or loose your equity. What else is needed. What's the upside of depositors taking a hit?

    1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    af29
    

    Large depositors need to take a haircut when a bank fails or else they will be incentivized to put their money in the riskiest bank possible in the future.

    Eurobro here. I don't get this attitude. If equity holders loose their money and depositors are shielded, what's the issue? Risk management is equity holders business, they affect the management. It's a good signal, strengthen it or loose your equity. What else is needed. What's the upside of depositors taking a hit?
    

    This.

    A good middle of the road would be covering 50% of what is above the 250k FDIC limit. That way, you prevent most defaults, and the depositors also get a huge loss, giving incentives in the future not to put their money in risky banks.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    2aac
    

    Europussies, do something about, you lil poosies.

    Europe’s financial regulators are furious at the handling of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, privately accusing US authorities of tearing up a rule book for failed banks that they had helped to write.
    While the disapproval has yet to be conveyed in a formal setting, some of the region’s top policymakers are seething over the decision to cover all depositors at SVB, fearing it will undermine a globally agreed regime.
    One senior eurozone official described their shock at the “total and utter incompetence” of US authorities, particularly after a decade and a half of “long and boring meetings” with Americans advocating an end to bailouts.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    2da6
    

    Large depositors need to take a haircut when a bank fails or else they will be incentivized to put their money in the riskiest bank possible in the future.

    Eurobro here. I don't get this attitude. If equity holders loose their money and depositors are shielded, what's the issue? Risk management is equity holders business, they affect the management. It's a good signal, strengthen it or loose your equity. What else is needed. What's the upside of depositors taking a hit?
    

    This.
    A good middle of the road would be covering 50% of what is above the 250k FDIC limit. That way, you prevent most defaults, and the depositors also get a huge loss, giving incentives in the future not to put their money in risky banks.

    Agree that this is the best solution. Federal reserve is a massive j0ke. Cl0wns forgot they are fighting inflation somehow.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    5f2b
    

    The elites always win. they create bubbles, profit from them, then the system crashes and then society gives them powers to solve a crisis they created. IN the process, again giving themselves a payout. They always win either way. They did the same thing during covid.

    Agree that this is the best solution. Federal reserve is a massive j0ke. Cl0wns forgot they are fighting inflation somehow.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »