[XogGyux]

Your videos are repeating my argument.

If your argument is that it is a bailout, then sure. But then you have been wasting both of our times saying otherwise.

That is absolutely false as I have explained over several pages in 2 separate threads. The FED is liable because it is the FED that profiteers from people's deposits. Creating separate organisations is merely for distraction.

The FED is not liable and I have explained over several pages.
The FED does not "profiteers" from people's deposits.
The FDIC recovers moneys in the ways of fees and fines on banks and presumably some of those fees are passed to clients, including depositors. The FDIC is only liable up to the 250k limit which is what they garantee based on the fees that they charge.
As I have explained to you before. If your home insurance only covers you up to the 500k limit for a home... you cannot put a claim for a 30million payout because you had a 30million artwork inside.

I understood very well

Does not seem like it.

All your spam videos contain the title SVB bailout, for the outrage. As I explained, it is totally false because SVB has not been bailed out.

They are not spam videos. They are educational videos with information for those that seem confused with the whole situation and fail to see what it is plainly obvious, this si a bailout.

What is contradictory is you blaming the depositors who had the mind to risk manage their money and remove them from SVB and also blame those depositors who did not do that as well.

Let me ask you this. Do you think SVB would have failed the way it did had depositors not rushed to take their money out and cause a bank rush?

For you, depositors are always at fault regardless what they do.

That is not what I have said. Responsibility and fault are not the same things.

No, you have not. Just repeating the statement that FDIC is liable and not the FED, it means nothing at all.

The FED is not liable.
The FDIC only up to the 250k they insure.

Can you stop making nonsense analogies please.

Can you start making sense, please?

All your analogies have been shown to be false.

You are incorrect.

As for this new one, the nanny is both the bank and the FED. It is the FED that enables the bank to take your deposits out and it is the FED that charges interest the bank for your money. The police is not taking a cut from the nanny to look after your baby, nor is the police creating a rule that it must ta ke a cut from the nanny, if it were it would also be liable.

LOL. You keep bringing the FED when you really mean the FDIC. And as I have said before, the FDIC can only be liable for what they are selling which is insurance up to and limited to 250k. If you order a seiko on amazon, amazon is only liable to deliver that seiko, you should not expect to have a rolex delivered to you nor would you have any recourse to force amazon to deliver a rolex for you. The FDIC is only insuring 250k. If you as a depositor want more than 250k, there are ways that you can accomplish that. I have already discussed this and I know for a fact that this is discussed in the Jon Stewart video that I linked that you called spam. I'd be useful for you to watch it so you realize the issue with your logic.

It is not really difficult.

I know! Right? Why are you having so much issue understanding this then?

The banking system is a ponzi scheme with the FED at the top of the pyramid, where 90-100% of all deposits can legally be removed from the owners and charged interest on by the FED and the banks without providing any return to the depositors.

Nonsense.

This entire system was created on the basis that you sign a contract with the bank for a specific interest to be charged during a particular amount of time. During that time your money is locked, you cannot remove it and it may also be lost if the bank fails.

That is not what a ponzi scheme is.
First... not all accounts in the bank are meant to provide interest. Checking accounts usually don't.
Second, as any other investment and/or service they can fail. You can buy a restaurant and you might lose the chef a few months later and the restaurant collapse because the quality is no longer the same... you can hire a catering company to do your kid's birthday and the company could fail to deliver because of a rat infestation.
As of right now, banks in the US are private enterprises, they can fail like any other company and their promises and/or guarantees can vanish with the company. If you buy a piece of equipment with a "lifetime guarantee" once the company fails and no longer in business, you are fucked. Even if you have a padlock with an engraved "lifetime guarantee", if the company does not exist anymore because it failed? You are shit out of luck. I don't understand why you would expect something different from a bank.

This exchange is fair in some ways and transparent. Savings accounts with such terms may not be guaranteed. But checking/current accounts with no such terms MUST be totally guaranteed by the FED and not "insured" by a separate institution.

You mean FDIC right?

[noemon]

I have been telling you over several posts that business checking/current accounts do not provide interest and as such there is no justification for a bank to use these deposits nor for the FED to charge interest on the bank using those deposits.

When you deposit money in your savings account, your bank can use an amount specified as capital to fund loans and pay you for using your money. For instance, say you deposited $2,000 in a savings account. Savings accounts pay interest—generally between 0.5% and 2%—so you receive an interest payment on your money, and the bank can use part of it in a loan. In turn, the bank might want to access 80% of your money to use as loans to other customers.

Now you are informing me that checking accounts do not provide interest. Okay, thanks for telling me back what I have been telling you. As I said 3 posts ago, now you have entered the stage of just telling me my own arguments back.

I keep telling you that the FDIC is merely a separate organisation whose only purpose is to work with the FED, the fact that it is separate is purely for distraction. It might as well be a branch/office in the FED/Central Bank itself.

For the 20th time perhaps, the FED is liable because the FED enables the profiteering on people's deposits and the FED is paid interest by the banks(bank rate/discount rate) for the people's deposits that the banks use and turn to the fed for liquidity on a daily/weekly/monthly/whatever basis. The Fed also sets the reserve limits and they vary from 0-10%(currently set at 0% since 2020), that is banks are allowed to use up to 100% of all deposits in the system to take risks without any of the depositor's knowledge and can turn to the FED for a daily bailout by paying the base/bank/discount rate. The banks get daily bailouts from the FED that none of the outraged muppets call "bailouts" because it is regulated as an entirely legal thing for using depositors' money and then turning to the printers for more at a discount rate that enables the entire ponzi scheme to grow money from the magic money tree. There is also no transparency on this so nobody knows anything at any given point. We do know that the FED makes about 100 billion net profits per year(after all its salaries, surplus and undisclosed bonuses are paid) just by lending money to banks that nobody knows anything about.

Money that it in turn "hands over to the Treasury" only to get back on demand which after all is the FED's own printing machine(the Fed determines how much to print and orders the Treasury to print) and which like the FDIC, it might as well be the same office as the FED. There is zero point in them 3 being separate organizations and in many countries, all these 3 are just 1 organization.

You claim that depositors are liable/responsible/guilty(choose another word of your choice) both for keeping their money in a failing bank and for moving their money away from a failing bank. This is contradictory and nonsense.

The youtube videos you spammed us with calling this an "SVB bailout" in their headlines are all wrong and merely playing for outrage because SVB the company has not been bailed out.

Now to recap:

People that have health problems do not need bailouts, they need a government that guarantees free access to health care.

Students do not need bailouts for their student loans, they need a government that guarantees free access to education.

Depositors do not need a bailout, they need a government that guarantees them access to their own money. At the very least for those with current/checking accounts. Those with saving accounts that are paid interest are free to sign their right to their money away. Those that do not, are entitled access to their money and those that regulate otherwise(Fed/Central Bank) are liable for that money.

It doesn't have to be free and for business checking accounts, it is not free but a paid product that pays no interest, and as such the banks have no right to use these deposits for other reasons.

Lastly, I kindly ask you to move this conversation forward by pondering and replying to these very good questions:

What incentive is there for the regulators who enable the pyramid scheme for their own benefit and the benefits of their users(banks and financial institutions), to properly oversee that scheme when they are not liable for its failure?

Why should the depositors be liable for the losses of their own money, when it is not them making the risk decisions with their own deposits but third parties?

Why would deposits that are not paid interest be allowed to enter the pyramid scheme? Only when the bank pays interest does it get a right to use other people's money in a savings accounts as per a particular contract for a prescribed time duration.

[XogGyux]

Look guys, another bailout that is not a bailout:

15 years later and we still have not learned anything.
On a side note, the curious thing why is bitcoin twice as much as on jan 1st? Banks failing, at least two of the banks have been linked to crypto deals. I what world does this even make sense? Who is idiot gambler that rushes to cash out his $$ from SVB and says to himself "wow I dodged that bullet, let me get my shit together and put it on a real investment, bitcoin". These people are high as a kite on cocaine, they are playing around with money and when they fuck up they call daddy and mommy for help.

[noemon]

Look guys, another bailout that is not a bailout:

Says who? Credit Suisse is a massive bailout. SVB isn't. Credit Suisse has taken and is still taking massive money to keep the company alive from all sides, government, Swiss central bank, other banks. SVB is no more and has gone into administration. How do you even compare the 2 analogically? And how do you fail to see the quite massive difference that SVB no longer is while CS is being propped up with hundreds of billions just so it carry on existing. This alone should make it clear to you and the other outraged individuals in PoFo, twitter and youtube as to what is actually a bailout.

On a side note, the curious thing why is bitcoin twice as much as on jan 1st? Banks failing, at least two of the banks have been linked to crypto deals. I what world does this even make sense? Who is idiot gambler that rushes to cash out his $$ from SVB and says to himself "wow I dodged that bullet, let me get my shit together and put it on a real investment, bitcoin". These people are high as a kite on cocaine, they are playing around with money and when they fuck up they call daddy and mommy for help.

At least something we agree on.

[noemon]

"Blame depositors not trusting banks with their deposits", says Janet Jellen.

All people removing their money from banks and spreading it around as any sane person should after several collapses the past week, could end in a second if Jellen and the FED/Central Bank regulators guaranteed the security of checking/current account deposits and restored trust in the system they have broken.

Seems like we have a long summer ahead of us, with yet another crisis at hand.

Lots of pundits out there pushing the central banker's agenda by blaming everybody else but it.

This is going to be a long one, like the Ukraine war.

I think we should make a new badge for people with Butters: "I support the banker's human right to use 100% of your deposits to make money on and 100% of the liability to the stupid man who is still using a bank to pay their bills, they should use unregulated crypto instead or bags of cash so they can be arrested by police for drug-dealing or money-laundering, screw 'em little bitches".

[noemon]

Bank shares collapse as Yellen rules out full deposit guarantee despite 'reasoned arguments'.

Reaffirms position that the Fed & Treasury will guarantee deposits on their own whims, on a "case-by-case basis" and only if a "systemic risk" is posed.

FED Chair reassures depositors that their deposits are safe as the FED regulator is increasing liquidity for smaller banks.

[XogGyux]

Bank with the small community bank: Sorry bro, you are out of luck.
Bank with chase and TDBank: Hey buddy! your money is safe with me!.

nice quick analysis here.

[noemon]

Bank with the small community bank: Sorry bro, you are out of luck.
Bank with chase and TDBank: Hey buddy! your money is safe with me!.

nice quick analysis here.

Thanks, my analysis in video mode. Less quality but good enough!

No mate. There is the decision to agree with me and demand it to be so legislatively and not just because Yellen decided so on a whim.

Yellen guaranteed SVB depositors because of the risk for an entire ecosystem but what about a smaller ecosystem? let them burn because they are too little to bother. You sound more capitalist than JP Morgan's CEO.

Moreover, no tax without representation = no liability without a say in the regulatory framework.

Also, no risk for no option and thus "decision".

It's not really rocket science.

We are only taken for fools because we follow people like you who simply accept it because this is how it must be. But evidently not.

All SVB depositors will be covered regardless of bank assets. And the decision was made on a whim because of the systemic risk of collapsing an entire ecosystem. What about a smaller ecosystem of less important people? Let them burn, eh?

The risk should be on the regulatory authority that establishes the rules, not the depositor who has no other option because of the regulatory environment.

The FED has all power to print money and cover all these losses without affecting inflation as the money put in merely replaces money gone into thin air. As the independent(.ie with no public/depositor say) authority regulating, its role as the lender of last resort, the authority responsible for financial stability in the system and the one responsible for inflation, that is actually its institutional role.

The fact that we also allow the FED to choose where and when it decides to do so to save depositors from its own regulatory framework and thus liability, simply speaks to our meekness and sheepish attitude towards things that we have simply been brainwashed to accept as such.

And nope, we do not need a 1:1 ratio to achieve that, we merely need a more vocal population standing up for its rights and not just for a fraction of its own money.

Hold fast, do not use propaganda language that blames the wrong people for the wrong reasons and this will come.

Yellen's position is impossible to defend as it goes against competition laws(creating two tiers for banks and depositors) and is also destructive for the financial market as it is causing cascading bank runs in smaller banks that could snowball out of control. She is unable to retract her statement of guaranteeing deposits for the large boys without causing a total financial meltdown. And if her statements succeed in making everyone bank run to systemic banks without a financial meltdown, then the point will have been achieved regardless as all deposits will be guaranteed. The system will lose the smaller banks but that is a smaller price to pay for the average person than losing their deposits. Effectively, all deposits have now been guaranteed and Yellen has given people notice to leave the smaller banks and turn to the big boys so that their money are safe. It will be interesting to see how the markets react tomorrow and the next few days & weeks in the US.

Victory is at hand and not just in a little obscure forum in the far corners of the internet, nor in a "utopia" either but in the real world.

PoFo has called many things first, from the Iraq war to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Brexit, Balkans, North Macedonia, Multilateralism, and many others and totally against the grain at every given moment.

[XogGyux]

Thanks, my analysis in video mode. Less quality but good enough!

I am very glad that you approve.

Yellen's position is impossible to defend as it goes against competition laws(creating two tiers for banks and depositors) and is also destructive for the financial market as it is causing cascading bank runs in smaller banks that could snowball out of control.

Exactly. But asking for the government to be on the hook for the gambling losses of all banks... I read an article the other day in Forbes that claims only 1 person on the board of SVB had a banking experience background. I doubt there is any political animus to offer blanket guarantees to all depositors any more than there is political animus to put the regulations that are required to reduce this reckless behavior of the industry. Seriously, selling or attempting to sell your stock before the FDIC taking over your bank should land you squarely on the other side of a prison cell. We need more bank regulation. I am perfectly in agreement with optional FIDC buy-as-you-need insurance (to keep premiums and fees to a minimum to most normal humans that don't keep more than a quarter of a million dollars in the same bank account).

It will be interesting to see how the markets react tomorrow and the next few days & weeks in the US.

I am not convinced they know what tehy are doing, but one thing I am convinced and it is that Wall Street doesn't have a fucking clue what they are doing most of the day, I wouldn't be checking on them for a pulse of what it is to happen.

[Steve_American]

I am very glad that you approve.


Exactly. But asking for the government to be on the hook for the gambling losses of all banks... I read an article the other day in Forbes that claims only 1 person on the board of SVB had a banking experience background. I doubt there is any political animus to offer blanket guarantees to all depositors any more than there is political animus to put the regulations that are required to reduce this reckless behavior of the industry. Seriously, selling or attempting to sell your stock before the FDIC taking over your bank should land you squarely on the other side of a prison cell. We need more bank regulation. I am perfectly in agreement with optional FIDC buy-as-you-need insurance (to keep premiums and fees to a minimum to most normal humans that don't keep more than a quarter of a million dollars in the same bank account).


I am not convinced they know what tehy are doing, but one thing I am convinced and it is that Wall Street doesn't have a fucking clue what they are doing most of the day, I wouldn't be checking on them for a pulse of what it is to happen.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that selling bank stock just before the FDIC takes over is an example of 'insider trading'. It might be illegal already.

.

[Rancid]

We need more bank regulation.

We need lots and lots and lots.

However, the politicians and their owners probably don't.

[ness31]

SVB has been bought by First Citizens Bank. That was nice of them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65084248