| General > General Technical Chat |
| Silicon Valley Bank Collapses |
| << < (10/48) > >> |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: coppice on March 13, 2023, 01:40:17 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2023, 01:38:08 am --- --- Quote from: bdunham7 on March 13, 2023, 01:13:17 am ---I don't know that they will since it takes a fair amount of work to switch banks if you are a medium-ish or larger company. The shortfalls in general are going to be covered for a little while by the new program that will loan money to banks against their securities at par value, not market value. IOW, the shortfall will come from a loan for more than the collateral is presently worth. --- End quote --- Yes, if they do marked to market they are going to come up hugely short, to the tune of 10's of billions. --- End quote --- Only 10's? That's loose change to these people. --- End quote --- But it was enough for then to try and raise capital which then started a run on the bank. I have a summary: https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1635125815175413761 I can't believe they didn't have a chief risk officier for 9 months, that's insane. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: VK3DRB on March 13, 2023, 04:30:34 am ---Its coming very soon. --- End quote --- Buckle up Dorothy. |
| BravoV:
When you gambled, and lost, but government keeps saving your a$$, what stopping you, me and all of us to keep gambling ? >:D Watch the deep state's spin doctors work hard trying to morph the word "bail out", into something that sounds like not a bail out, but it is still a bail out. :-DD |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: coppice on March 12, 2023, 10:52:03 pm ---Watch out for that bail in legislation. There are some interesting conditions which have been added to bank conditions in the last 3 or 4 years. Things like them reserving the right to refuse deposits. So far they don't seem to have given any indication about the scale of balance they are likely to refuse. I suspect that if one of the big UK banks had any serious trouble, it would be the end of London as a major financial centre, and perhaps the UK. The government had issues coping with RBS last time. Another of the big banks being in trouble, when the government's own borrowing status is not in great shape, is probably something they just couldn't cope with. --- End quote --- This has nothing to do with banks refusing to pay out. The FSCS is a government arm and covers people about 3-6 months after a bank collapse. If a UK bank fails catastrophically, the UK government will magic the money up. The alternative of allowing depositors to lose out is far too costly because as you note, it would be the end of banking in the UK. There is a reason major governments guarantee depositor funds, they want a functional banking system. I don't recall the government "struggling" with RBS. IIRC the total net cost to the taxpayer in the end for all of the 2008 bailouts was £27bn at last count (https://fullfact.org/economy/1-trillion-not-spent-bailing-out-banks/). Not small change but hardly beyond the realm of government spending. |
| iMo:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/business/signature-bank-collapse.html |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |