SVB is Now In the Hands of the FDIC

Morgan

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
1,503
Location
TX
Hmm.. I use 3 different credit unions. All are far superior to when I used PNC and M&T.

Navy Fed is light years ahead of any bank I’ve used regarding customer service and tech abilities like you mentioned.
I believe you. I’ve not shopped banking services in a long while. Great to hear that I won’t be losing any conveniences.
 

JAJ

Rapidly Losing Interest
Established Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
791
Location
in the V6L
FYI VCs/PE dont short stocks. They do not even have prime broker accounts LOL
I wasn't referring to VC firms, I was referring to VC partners. They can short anything they want, so long as there's no conflict. Just imagine that, one day recently, a VC partner (or a PE partner) gets a call from a buddy who's an analyst at a hedge fund. The buddy says SVB looks shaky, so the VC acts expeditiously to protect his personal assets, any of the fund's assets and most importantly, the fund investees' assets. It's a small community, and other VC's that have coinvested in deals with our VC, hear what's going on and join in the run on the bank. Once each has cleared their conflicts, they might just keep going and short SVB stock in their personal account.

So, if that's happened, nobody broke any rules, except maybe the hedge fund analyst. The sky-is-falling story I expect to hear though, is that the VC's took short positions before the run on the bank. As for the hedge fund guy, well, if he already had a short position when he called the VC, he could be in some trouble.
 

Klaus

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
minnesota
I wasn't referring to VC firms, I was referring to VC partners. They can short anything they want, so long as there's no conflict. Just imagine that, one day recently, a VC partner (or a PE partner) gets a call from a buddy who's an analyst at a hedge fund. The buddy says SVB looks shaky, so the VC acts expeditiously to protect his personal assets, any of the fund's assets and most importantly, the fund investees' assets. It's a small community, and other VC's that have coinvested in deals with our VC, hear what's going on and join in the run on the bank. Once each has cleared their conflicts, they might just keep going and short SVB stock in their personal account.

So, if that's happened, nobody broke any rules, except maybe the hedge fund analyst. The sky-is-falling story I expect to hear though, is that the VC's took short positions before the run on the bank. As for the hedge fund guy, well, if he already had a short position when he called the VC, he could be in some trouble.

The VC guy in this scenario banks at SVB.

The firm that the VC guy is a partner at does all of its capital markets activity through SVB.

The companies that he invests in through his VC fund are banked by SVB and maintain all of their cash accounts at SVB

The VC in this scenario is personal friends with his counterparts at SVB.

The VC in this scenario makes a shit ton more if SVB exists than the relatively miniscule profits he makes off of the short in this scenario.

It is super easy to connect the dots to see who shorted the shares and you would have to be a moron to do what you describe. VCs are actually very very smart, they are not retail schmucks on Reddit.

Etc. etc. etc.

You can actually look up short interest. SVB was not heavily shorted going into this
 
Last edited:

Klaus

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
minnesota
I wasn't referring to VC firms, I was referring to VC partners. They can short anything they want, so long as there's no conflict. Just imagine that, one day recently, a VC partner (or a PE partner) gets a call from a buddy who's an analyst at a hedge fund. The buddy says SVB looks shaky, so the VC acts expeditiously to protect his personal assets, any of the fund's assets and most importantly, the fund investees' assets. It's a small community, and other VC's that have coinvested in deals with our VC, hear what's going on and join in the run on the bank. Once each has cleared their conflicts, they might just keep going and short SVB stock in their personal account.

So, if that's happened, nobody broke any rules, except maybe the hedge fund analyst. The sky-is-falling story I expect to hear though, is that the VC's took short positions before the run on the bank. As for the hedge fund guy, well, if he already had a short position when he called the VC, he could be in some trouble.

As it happens, SVB was an investor

 

VegasMichael

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
6,396
Location
Empire State
Also credit unions are probably less bureaucratic which is going to make a significant difference. Every large bank is rallying credit committees to come up with reasons not to lend. The government is already rallying for more regulations. The net effect will be credit tightening. Credit unions are probably far less effected by this.
But do we need more regulations or just better regulators?
 

Klaus

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
minnesota
But do we need more regulations or just better regulators?

Trick question. There is no such thing as a "better regulator."

Regulations are merely a subsidy for the largest operators in a particular industry.

The net effect in banking is that it results in a concentration of risk in the largest banks.

Smaller banks cannot afford to comply with the additional tax of regulation.

It is in fact large banks that are most in favor of regulation. They lobby for it and write the rules themselves.

Who would not jump at the chance to create a monopoly for one's self? This is what JPM, C, WAF have done.

They are the net beneficiaries of all of this despite ****ing up in exactly the same fashion. Perhaps worse. C and BAC should have been put out of their misery long ago.

The irony is that all of the reforms that attempted to disburse risk and get rid of the "too big to fail" banks have had the opposite effect. They are bigger than ever and have fully captured the regulatory apparatus to their benefit.

The MOAR REGULATION fetishists are either ignorant of this or in fact simping for this outcome. We need less regulation not more.
 

VegasMichael

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
6,396
Location
Empire State
Trick question. There is no such thing as a "better regulator."

Regulations are merely a subsidy for the largest operators in a particular industry.

The net effect in banking is that it results in a concentration of risk in the largest banks.

Smaller banks cannot afford to comply with the additional tax of regulation.

It is in fact large banks that are most in favor of regulation. They lobby for it and write the rules themselves.

Who would not jump at the chance to create a monopoly for one's self? This is what JPM, C, WAF have done.

They are the net beneficiaries of all of this despite ****ing up in exactly the same fashion. Perhaps worse. C and BAC should have been put out of their misery long ago.

The irony is that all of the reforms that attempted to disburse risk and get rid of the "too big to fail" banks have had the opposite effect. They are bigger than ever and have fully captured the regulatory apparatus to their benefit.

The MOAR REGULATION fetishists are either ignorant of this or in fact simping for this outcome. We need less regulation not more.
Interesting.
But wasn't a lack of regulation partially responsible for the implosion of the real estate market and credit crunch of 2008? I mean banks were giving out huge loans to people who didn't qualify and then re-selling them to Fannie and Freddie both of whom ended up in the shitter. I NEVER understood why those loans were allowed. Also, what are your thoughts on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act back in the 90s which then allowed banks to be commercial lenders and investment bankers...in essence making many of them too big to fail.
I guess I get irritated when Congress and government officials get pissed off at banks and lending practices when THEY always seem to have been part of the problem.
 

03cobra#694

Good Guy
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
62,080
Location
SW FL.
What ever you paid last year. Double it. That’s what I’m seeing from everyone who’s premiums came due.
Yikes, see below. We're derailing this a little, but we'll see what happens in November when most new shit comes out.
Mine almost doubled


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
That would make mine $8,000. It was $2,200 in 2022.
You are right. I am now in a flood zone. The bank was nice enough to purchase a flood insurance policy for us even though we had an existing policy at nearly 4 times are cost.
Well, aren't they just sweet. I know the changed they flood maps in Charlotte County too. I'm like 52' above sea level, so no need for flood. I don't have a mortgage, but no way in hell I'm not having insurance on a $600K house.
 

BrunotheBoxer

PUREBLOOD MASTERRACE
Established Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
10,425
Location
Born and raised Brockton. Living in Naples.
Yikes, see below. We're derailing this a little, but we'll see what happens in November when most new shit comes out.

That would make mine $8,000. It was $2,200 in 2022.

Well, aren't they just sweet. I know the changed they flood maps in Charlotte County too. I'm like 52' above sea level, so no need for flood. I don't have a mortgage, but no way in hell I'm not having insurance on a $600K house.
Sorry to derail but I’m 10 feet about sea level and I thought I was in good shape. Less than a mile away from me there are flood zones that got hammered by the Ian surge.
Here nothing. Also no mortgage but we’d never not have insurance on a home either. Way to risky in Florida or anywhere.
 

598

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,494
Location
Frankfort IL
Trick question. There is no such thing as a "better regulator."

Regulations are merely a subsidy for the largest operators in a particular industry.

The net effect in banking is that it results in a concentration of risk in the largest banks.

Smaller banks cannot afford to comply with the additional tax of regulation.

It is in fact large banks that are most in favor of regulation. They lobby for it and write the rules themselves.

Who would not jump at the chance to create a monopoly for one's self? This is what JPM, C, WAF have done.

They are the net beneficiaries of all of this despite ****ing up in exactly the same fashion. Perhaps worse. C and BAC should have been put out of their misery long ago.

The irony is that all of the reforms that attempted to disburse risk and get rid of the "too big to fail" banks have had the opposite effect. They are bigger than ever and have fully captured the regulatory apparatus to their benefit.

The MOAR REGULATION fetishists are either ignorant of this or in fact simping for this outcome. We need less regulation not more.
This is a fact. In every industry and business I have been involved in, most regulation is written to benefit the large at the expense of the small. The large then channel some of their spoils back to the politicians that then make regulations even more in favor of the entrenched entity. One of my biggest pet peeves is with all the high-end loopholes created to circumvent taxes, and you always hear in the pitch, its all legal. Well no sh*t, your team wrote the crooked law.
 

7upstang

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
291
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Yikes, see below. We're derailing this a little, but we'll see what happens in November when most new shit comes out.

That would make mine $8,000. It was $2,200 in 2022.

Well, aren't they just sweet. I know the changed they flood maps in Charlotte County too. I'm like 52' above sea level, so no need for flood. I don't have a mortgage, but no way in hell I'm not having insurance on a $600K house.
Heck no, I agree it's too cheap not to have on a home.
Sorry to derail but I’m 10 feet about sea level and I thought I was in good shape. Less than a mile away from me there are flood zones that got hammered by the Ian surge.
Here nothing. Also no mortgage but we’d never not have insurance on a home either. Way to risky in Florida or anywhere.
Oh flood insurance is a must in Florida. I know of homes 50 foot above sea level that flooded in 2017 from Irma (we had a ton of rain the week before).
 

Klaus

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
minnesota
I NEVER understood why those loans were allowed.

It was in fact regulations that drove loan origination. Do some Google fu on Bill Clinton's home ownership strategy of 1998.

Essentially originators were compelled to lend to those that would not otherwise qualify as part of a federal govt mandated effort to increase home ownership.

Ultimately it meant a lot of people got loans that shouldn't have. Low rates in the early 2000s put this into hyperdrive.

it is not the sole cause. There is plenty of blame to go around. Originators certainly deserve a good amount of the blame.

but the initial catalyst was in fact regulation.
 

VegasMichael

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
6,396
Location
Empire State
It was in fact regulations that drove loan origination. Do some Google fu on Bill Clinton's home ownership strategy of 1998.

Essentially originators were compelled to lend to those that would not otherwise qualify as part of a federal govt mandated effort to increase home ownership.

Ultimately it meant a lot of people got loans that shouldn't have. Low rates in the early 2000s put this into hyperdrive.

it is not the sole cause. There is plenty of blame to go around. Originators certainly deserve a good amount of the blame.

but the initial catalyst was in fact regulation.
I remember quite well that whole debacle yet it was the banks that took the brunt of the blame when it should have been Congress and Billy Boy. I remember the Bush administration and Allen Greenspan were raising eyebrows about it but Congress told them everything was fine. It was BAD regulations that caused that shit show when anyone with half a brain knew it would be doomed. Bad regulations like those were really a form of no regulations to me. When you let anyone with a pulse get a loan you're not regulating in my eyes, you're gifting.
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,684
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
I remember quite well that whole debacle yet it was the banks that took the brunt of the blame when it should have been Congress and Billy Boy. I remember the Bush administration and Allen Greenspan were raising eyebrows about it but Congress told them everything was fine. It was BAD regulations that caused that shit show when anyone with half a brain knew it would be doomed. Bad regulations like those were really a form of no regulations to me. When you let anyone with a pulse get a loan you're not regulating in my eyes, you're gifting.

I wanna go all Ron Paul on this but staying in my lane for a second, I know that No Regulation in my Line of work would be disastrous as companies are like children and have zero respect for the people or the planet and only truly care about profit.
 

Rb0891

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
3,900
Location
Indiana
I wanna go all Ron Paul on this but staying in my lane for a second, I know that No Regulation in my Line of work would be disastrous as companies are like children and have zero respect for the people or the planet and only truly care about profit.
Well you are really in an oligopoly, no? Not like there is really consumer choice. But I get what you are saying.
 

VegasMichael

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
6,396
Location
Empire State
I wanna go all Ron Paul on this but staying in my lane for a second, I know that No Regulation in my Line of work would be disastrous as companies are like children and have zero respect for the people or the planet and only truly care about profit.
Imagine what it was like before OSHA or Unions(although this one is debated by some). A big part of me is glad I worked in the non-profit sector.
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,684
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
Well you are really in an oligopoly, no? Not like there is really consumer choice. But I get what you are saying.

There IS… but it’s not like you think and it’s rather complex. Not saying you wouldn’t get it but there is a lot of disinformation and propaganda out there about Regulated and DeRegulated Utility markets.
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,684
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
Imagine what it was like before OSHA or Unions(although this one is debated by some). A big part of me is glad I worked in the non-profit sector.

OSHA tried to jab me with an experimental vaccine.

My Union Brothers and I standing firm held off them and the company till the SCOTUS made the right call.

Union leadership was NOT on our side.. go figure.

The boys at my previous plant which is/was non-union…. Not so lucky.

In my 40+ years on this planet I’ve realized a few things and one of them is that Regulation is needed but must be restrained in order to allow the free market to do its thing…

I would suspect it’s like that in most areas.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top