I guess Trump did sign the bipartisan legislation.This have anything to do with it? (2018)
Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis
The measure designed to ease rules on all but the largest U.S. banks passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support.www.cnbc.com
Do I need to make a poll to prove to everyone the right wing accusation that "woke" caused the bank failures is yet again more of their bullshit?
Anyone think this accusation has a scintilla of credibility?? See how propaganda works?? That lie has spread around the country at least a dozen times while the truth gets buried.
13 Dem congresspeople, 15 senators. And the entire GQP party. This was a Republican piece of legislation and priority. If Dems were in control, no shot of it.I guess Trump did sign the bipartisan legislation.
maybe post a link next time.Check out the PBS Frontline episode that aired this evening: "Age of Easy Money".
They can't even get that right. Board members are on their website 3 of the 12 are women.Nope, it has literally zero credibility. When they've tried to be specific, one GOP pol said that it was the fact that the bank's board was now staffed primarily by women and POC's, then hastily added, "I don't mean to imply that white men could have done any better, but the whole diversity requirement must have been such a distraction that they just screwed up."
So you see, the only way to make the argument is to either say something overtly racist/sexist, or else make a silly non-argument about "distractions."
Pro-tip: If anyone wants to try to back this argument up, please be specific as to how and why, preferrably something other than "white men are better at running banks than women or POC's are" and try something a little more sound than "they were so distracted by these diversity requirements that they didn't even notice they were making bad investments." Because LOL, if you want to come across as developmentally disabled without actually being developmentally disabled, that's how you do it.
They are good for something.Guys, it's obvious by now.
DEI is just their convenient way of disguising their contempt for women and minorities. It's their way of saying women and minorities aren't good enough for a certain task.
Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit "bipartisan legislation".. just because there where "some" dems (33 to be exact) who supported it doesn't make it bipartisan legislation.. you do recall that during that time the fucking traitors (GOP) controlled both houses right? The bill passed with 258 to 159.. That means 225 traitors where for it vs 33 dems.. so fuck off with your bullshit that you are implying.. trying to make it look like it wasn't the traitor party that did it (your party).. They didn't need a single fucking dem to pass it. All you are is a manipulative piece of shit.. go crawl back under the shit covered rock you live under.I guess Trump did sign the bipartisan legislation.
Just a FYI, Etrade is owned by Morgan Stanley since about 2 years ago or so.Looks like they are using Morgan Stanley as the primary bank and using a company called Stable to sweep any excess funds over 250k into other banks. Questions you'd have to ask are if you know what banks your money is being swept to? You wouldn't want to have a personal account at that same bank which would limit your protection. Then if you do open multiple accounts, you'd need to make sure funds aren't swept into the same bank again. Not sure why the limit of 500k if they just keep opening accounts at another bank
absolutely brilliant satireOpinion: Millions of Americans hoping next child will be born a bank (Washington Post)
“I thought we had agreed it was sort of a dog-eat-dog, free-enterprise system out there, where you pay all the consequences of your actions and at the end of the day, you’re on your own. You have debts? Tough. You are unwell? Shame. So when I saw that there was another way, I knew it was what I wanted for my child. I just want my baby to go through life like a financial institution. She can even be a small, regional bank. As long as she’s happy! And as long as the government will swoop in to help if things start to go south for her.”
“I am not angry that they rescued the banks! I just wish this same consideration were also extended to people!” noted Justine, another prospective parent. “Plus, if my daughter is a bank, she’ll get much more autonomy and ability to self-regulate than if she is a human woman in a lot of states.”
If that’s the case that’s fine but then the solution is to fully guarantee deposits AND charge the necessary fees to fund that guarantee.One thing to consider with regards to $250k FDIC guarantees vs them covering all deposits is it's not just individuals who use banks. Companies use banks to meet payroll. Even if they invest the money outside of a bank the processing often leaves large dollar amounts in a bank for at least 48 hours. It's not going to be realistically possible for companies to spread out into $250k insured deposits.
I'd argue that the full guarantee of deposits was necessary for the following reasons:
We know that, at a certain point, letting a company fail is worse for everyone. People far removed who've never even heard of the bank let alone done business with them can get hurt financially. Sometimes the environment is shaky enough you need to save a failing company. When it was decided to let Lehman Brothers that caused a credit freeze that was just barely not catastrophic. At a minimum it ushered in the 2008 crisis much faster (and therefore harder to mitigate) than it would have otherwise.
The Saturday after the SVB announcement regulators were seeing signs of massive deposit outflows from 20 other banks. Some (all?) of those were already seeing some of the stress signs of SVB but for different reasons.
If the guarantee hadn't been made and people and, more specifically, companies across banks would be even more worried about taking huge losses on payroll\deposits etc if they were at a smaller bank. That run on 20 banks would have spread to more banks and we'd be awash in more bank closures. Which creates a self-reinforcing narrative that would endanger even more banks and other financial systems.
There's enough turmoil as it is. The turmoil in the US exposed Credit Sussie, who has apparently had "material weakness" in its finances and reporting for a number of years completely unrelated to anything else going on. So now you have multiple high profile bank issues for multiple different reasons and people are getting spooked. However bad this gets or doesn't get - letting SVB fail would have made the pain a whole lot worse
We know that, at a certain point, letting a company fail is worse right now. But the truth is that it almost certainly better in the long run. We are in this situation today exactly because we bailed them out in 2008. There is no reason not to gamble big if you can't lose big. Since we have an entire half of our political system that is opposed to regulating the problem, we will just keep having this happen over and over if we keep shielding them from the consequences.We know that, at a certain point, letting a company fail is worse for everyone. People far removed who've never even heard of the bank let alone done business with them can get hurt financially. Sometimes the environment is shaky enough you need to save a failing company. When it was decided to let Lehman Brothers that caused a credit freeze that was just barely not catastrophic. At a minimum it ushered in the 2008 crisis much faster (and therefore harder to mitigate) than it would have otherwise.
Why would banks take any deposits then though?Hot take: banks shouldn't be able to touch deposits. All moneymaking endeavors should be done with their own money, and any interest earned on that money. Investments in the bank should be done contractually with the understanding that the investment cannot be withdrawn until the contract expires, at which point each goes their separate ways, or a new contract is negotiated. Yeah, banks won't make as much money. I don't care.
I dont know if its as simple as they wouldnt make as much money; they may not exist in the first place.Hot take: banks shouldn't be able to touch deposits. All moneymaking endeavors should be done with their own money, and any interest earned on that money. Investments in the bank should be done contractually with the understanding that the investment cannot be withdrawn until the contract expires, at which point each goes their separate ways, or a new contract is negotiated. Yeah, banks won't make as much money. I don't care.
Probably. I'd be fine with a fee, probably a percentage of the total account balance or something.Why would banks take any deposits then though?
EDIT: I guess everyone would have to pay a monthly fee to the bank for their accounts.
Maybe not, maybe we don't need 50,000 local banks though either.I dont know if its as simple as they wouldnt make as much money; they may not exist in the first place.
Id just as soon have that much competition as opposed to a few corporate "too big to fail" monoliths.Probably. I'd be fine with a fee, probably a percentage of the total account balance or something.
Maybe not, maybe we don't need 50,000 local banks though either.
If that’s the case that’s fine but then the solution is to fully guarantee deposits AND charge the necessary fees to fund that guarantee.
A few monolithic banks that actually keep their shit squared away rather than building a pyramid scheme in order to squeeze every last cent of potential out of depositor's money would be preferable imo.Id just as soon have that much competition as opposed to a few corporate "too big to fail" monoliths.
A few monolithic banks that actually keep their shit squared away rather than building a pyramid scheme in order to squeeze every last cent of potential out of depositor's money would be preferable imo.
I'm pulling to not have the entire economy withdraw and a bank contagion collapse all those local banks anyhow because none of them are required to be liquid enough to actually give people their money when they ask. If the only way that can happen is to have larger banks that can survive and less 'tailored services' (whatever that means), so be it.Personally I’d lean towards the “50,000 local banks” you seem to think aren’t worthwhile having because at least they’d be cognizant of local needs and wants and tailor their services to better serve the local clientele, something huge monolithic banks seem to struggle with.
And do not forget a truism in capitalism…fewer players in any given segment produce higher prices and shittier service, except for stockholders. Guess that’s who you’re pulling for?