Crash the train to stop it

[Oerets]

How can it be argued seriously, when in one sentence will complain about regulations put forth by others. As a barrier to a company doing business, infringing on jobs ect....

To then be the first to then blame the very ones who wanted to regulate said industry. Is it a attempt to distract from the fact the reasons there were loose regulations is in fact your fault?

So which is it, do you want regulations or not?

[Dondilion]

The Democrats grab for Trump and the Repubs reach for DEI.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're arguing that the modified Dodd-Frank was insufficiently strong to prevent the SBV collapse? Let's see if you argue in favor of tightening up regulations to prevent the next one. Maybe we should prohibit Republican super donors (like Peter Thiel) from backing such banks and then leading runs on them, thereby creating a crisis (and then demanding from government to be made whole by the regulators they vehemently oppose).

Contrary to your assertion, I did not make an argument that either the derailments or the SVB collapse were immediately and directly tied to deregulation, but that these events "can be reasonably tied to GOP deregulation fervor (at least in the public's imagination) and that accordingly the GOP is "eager to blame anyone but themselves, from Pete Buttigieg to DEI inititiatives." The Dems have a far more credible argument than those Republicans blaming "wokeness" banks and DEI initiatives.

Ignoring Whell for now, here is how it all started.

On Friday, the major lender for tech startups was shut down by regulators. The commercial bank, among the 20 largest in the country, was caught in a free-fall bank run. Some of it seemed set off after a letter from SVB’s CEO Greg Becker, describing to shareholders a $1.8 billion loss on the sale of U.S. treasuries and mortgage-backed securities; high interest rates backgrounded the letter. Peter Thiel, a massive backer of the likes of J.D. Vance and Blake Masters, had his venture capital firms direct all their portfolio companies to withdraw their funds from the bank.

And then the floodgates burst open.

There was also a run on their stocks prior to this and insider trading is suspected. I am sure this will come out as to who started shorting SVB's stocks.

Though we are based in Santa Clara, we bank with much smaller local business banks than SVB, though the one we were with for several years got acquired by Zion.

https://newrepublic.com/post/171105/...y-bank-failure

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're arguing that the modified Dodd-Frank was insufficiently strong to prevent the SBV collapse?

No, that's YOUR argument. I see you're confused again. I'm saying, like former Senator and Senate Banking Committee Chair Frank, that Dodd-Frank in any form - original, modified, whatever - was not relevant to the SVB collapse.

Your position is that Trump and Repubs are to blame, because they apparently took some of the teeth out of banking regs applied to SVB including Dodd-Frank. Here, let me remind you:

Originally Posted by finnbow

There's a great deal of truth to Chick's assertion unlike the position of Ron DeSantis on the matter where he blames the bank for their focus on DEI initiatives (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) and not their core mission. I didn't realize that wingnuts now consider 10-year Treasury Bonds to be DEI initiatives.

And the simple fact remains that SVB successfully lobbied to roll back Dodd-Frank provisions to reduce both oversight (e.g., "stress testing") and capital requirements on regional banks such as SVB.

That lead to a simple question, posted here:

Originally Posted by whell

OK, cool. I'll ask you the same thing that I asked Rajoo above:

Since it's your claim that "GOP deregulation" can be "reasonably tied" to SVB's failure, specifically tell me which elements of Dodd-Frank as modified in the final rules published in 2019, caused SBV's failure, and exactly how those modifications caused the failure.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Contrary to your assertion, I did not make an argument that either the derailments or the SVB collapse were immediately and directly tied to deregulation...

Sure you did. See above.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Ignoring Whell for now...

I guess this is what happens when you post a BS article and then are asked specific questions about the BS assertions in the BS article.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I guess this is what happens when you post a BS article and then are asked specific questions about the BS assertions in the BS article.

What is $250 Billion? Its a trick question.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let's see if you argue in favor of tightening up regulations to prevent the next one. Maybe we should prohibit Republican super donors (like Peter Thiel) from backing such banks and then leading runs on them, thereby creating a crisis (and then demanding from government to be made whole by the regulators they vehemently oppose).

I see the lefty talking points have been distributed telling like-minded folks to start chanting Thiel's name in connection with SVB.

You never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, but in case you're interested, a number of firms and advisors suggested getting out of SVB after they took a big hit on their bond sale:https://www.axios.com/2023/03/09/sil...enture-capital

Driving the news: Several top venture capital firms, including Coatue and Founders Fund, have suggested to some portfolio companies that they strongly consider pulling money out of SVB, as concerns grow over the bank's stability.

- Others, including Sequoia Capital, reiterated a longstanding message of diversification, via one-on-one conversations with portfolio companies.
- Founders Fund, Coutue and Sequoia all declined comment.
- The Information reports that Union Square Ventures told portfolio companies to "only keep minimal funds in cash accounts" at SVB.
- Several founders have privately told Axios that they're moving funds, with a rival banker saying his form "got a lot of new clients today."

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

What is $250 Billion? Its a trick question.

It's not the right question. The right question is regarding the liquidity requirements for banks of $100B or more. That's another hint.

[Rajoo]

As usual NYT has the story in simple words. This article is actually about Signature Bank (NY) which also got shut down two days after SVB. Zions bank is now being pummeled but they are a lot bigger than SVB and Signature.

Mr. Trump was more receptive. Barely a week after taking office, he called Dodd-Frank “a disaster” and told reporters that “we’re going to be doing a big number on” the law.

Which of course he and his minions did.

In the spring of 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed a law that watered down the landmark regulatory reform act that his predecessor had enacted following the global financial crisis. The changes won a surprising supporter: the liberal former congressman Barney Frank.

Mr. Frank was a primary architect of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, better known as Dodd-Frank. But since his retirement in 2013, he had repeatedly voiced support for softening one of the law’s key planks: that any bank with more than $50 billion in assets should face especially intensive federal supervision.

The ensuing tweak — lifting the threshold to $250 billion — had big consequences. Among other things, scores of very large banks would escape, at least initially, the Federal Reserve’s annual “stress tests” and enjoy easier financial-safety requirements.

The legislation followed years of pressure from bank executives and lobbyists, including Greg Becker, who until Friday ran Silicon Valley Bank.

“Without such changes, S.V.B. likely will need to divert significant resources from providing financing to job-creating companies in the innovation economy,” Mr. Becker warned lawmakers in 2015.

One beneficiary of the change was Signature Bank, a New York lender whose board of directors included Mr. Frank.

Now Signature is dead — a victim of a fast-moving crisis that has revealed the extent to which the banking industry and other opponents of government oversight have chipped away at the robust regulatory protections that were erected after the 2008 financial meltdown.

On Sunday, regulators shut down Signature, fearing that sudden mass withdrawals of deposits had left it on dangerous footing. Its failure came barely 48 hours after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, whose executives had joined Mr. Frank in successfully pushing to lift the $50 billion threshold.

And finally this:

Mr. Frank, who received more than $2.4 million in cash and stock from Signature during his seven-plus years on the board, left the job on Sunday as regulators dissolved the board. He said on Monday that the bank was the victim of overzealous regulators. “We were the ones who they shot to encourage others to stay away from crypto,” he said

I am not claiming that the $250 Billion threshold alone caused these banks to shut their doors, but they do have a correlation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/b...egulation.html

[Oerets]

Rich just rich calling the removal of regulations as not needed.....then when problems arise complain and blame because something happens!

Height of hypocrisy, to be expected, nothing new from the Republicans.