I would hope these execs are prosecuted and any bonuses clawed back but that would be under the purview of a different agency (sec) not fdic, and is not an immediate concern, whereas a massive financial shock and 100s of companies closing due to lack of funds is.
> “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” Yellen said on Face the Nation.
> “But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”
I also don't know how refusing to make depositors whole would disincentivize bas behavior by execs, anyway? Seems like two unrelated issues.
It’s not that we punish the depositors but the scheme is set up that depositors suffer.
Imagine the mob stole all that money. It’s not punishing the depositors to not pay them back. The mob punished the depositors by stealing.
If I don’t buy homeowners insurance and some arsonist burns down my house, I’m out $100k to rebuild. Is it punishing me if the government doesn’t bail me out? The government isn’t punishing me, the arsonist punished me.
If we want government coverage then we should enact laws to cover this kind of thing and raise taxes and fees accordingly. We can’t enjoy the benefits of low regulation when it makes us money and then ask for coverage after the fact. After we’ve reaped the benefits of no regulation.
If you want to stop mismanagement like this don’t repeal banking regulations and instead regulate banks properly, that has nothing to do with that the fed decides to do for depositors to stop contagion and ripple effects in other industries.
The government has fdic and insures up to $250k. That’s what our taxes paid for. If we wanted to insure depositors for greater amounts, we would have paid more taxes.
This was an eyes wide open situation. Depositors could have managed their large sums of cash better. They didn’t, choosing to save money. Now it sucks.
Another analogy would be that if a couple skipped life insurance and leased a Porsche. And now the wage earner has been murdered and the remaining spouse is asking the government to pay for their dead spouses wages, while still driving the Porsche.
FYI, FDIC insurance coverage is funded by premium payments from covered banks, not from "our taxes".
The distinction here is that in this metaphor, the bank managers are both the homeowner and the arsonist.
> If we want government coverage then we should enact laws to cover this kind of thing
We already have. The uninsured depositors will be repaid from premiums paid to the FDIC by the rest of the banking industry.
How many global economic meltdowns do we have to go through before people learn that banks are literally the root cause of so many of society's problems? Depositors aren't being punished enough if they're still buying into this system. They keep feeding the beast and complaining when it eats them.
They're already required to do KYC/AML due dilligence on normal human beings. Why shouldn't they be required to do the same for the banks they trust their fortunes with?
Around the same time, analysts were commenting negatively about SVB’s earnings and liquidity position.
Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/svb-chief...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4573087-svb-financial-30-pe...
> Greg Becker used prearranged stock-trade plan to sell shares
He didn't "use a prearranged plan", a plan went into action and sold the shares. Becker had already filed paperwork to sell those shares at that specific time.
To my recollection, that was 10% of his shares. Becker wasn't planning months in advance on the bank smashing into a wall precisely a few days after he sold a measly 10%.
Even if both the CEO and CFO conspired to hide this, more than just them would know about the trouble and them conspiring to do this. Those individuals would now have no reason not to whisteblow immediately.
I find conspiracies, especially non-governmental, about large organizations incredibly hard to believe because of how difficult they would be to pull off.
It doesn’t have to be that complicated. Perhaps he saw that the bank was in trouble and made a decision to sell shares when the company was at a 52 week low. His calculus could just be: “with the information I possess, this price could go a lot lower.” He may not have foreseen an insolvency event, or perhaps he knew it was a risk that could occur sometime in 2023 and he should hedge it. Or maybe he just sold it randomly at a low price … because.
This is highly misleading. The bonuses were calculated/awarded from last year. The stock sales were pre-scheduled.
Note, one of the SVB executives was the former Lehman Brothers CFO in 2007, just one year prior to that institution’s collapse in 2008. What did he learn, exactly, besides how to get out in time?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/silicon-valley-bank-exec...