I left Lockport at the ripe old age of 6, I think. My father used to tell me, "Lockport is a nice place to be from..."
Gimme Los Gatos anyday...
SVB loss was the reason the technology-focused lender attempted a $2.25 billion stock sale last week using Goldman Sachs as an adviser
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
- Status
Gimme Los Gatos anyday...
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
Pablo,
The article I posted to start this thread was the first and only thing I read reference GS direct or indirect involvement in the SVB saga. I am OCONUS and have not seen TV for over five weeks, and am not researching SVB- almost all I know about SVB was from posts on BITOG. I had no idea GS involvement in the SVB saga was open source available days ago.
A supplemental note- GS should have recused themselves from any SVB transactions, once SVB reached out to GS for advisement on raising capital. I wonder if SVB had gone to a different funding advisor if the collapse may have been avoided.
I’m going to address this particular issue because I think it relates nicely to how many corporations, including banks are run. That is when the times are great, it’s great, but when things go sideways, daddy government needs to step in and save all these “strong and independent” women.
What would you say about men’s reproductive rights? Don’t we need them to? Right now we have absolutely zero.
If a woman can decide when to have or not to have a child, why can’t a man have the right to decide whether he wants or doesn’t want to support that child and the mother for the next 18 years? He could make that decision just before the child is born, just like a woman can.
The current family court system is essentially a bail out for irresponsible women, or manipulative women.
Reason: BASEL III. Banks are not required to mark-to-market the value of their bonds. Investors in the industry should've been aware of this so I don't understand the "panic". Central Banks (ex, The Fed) create "credit money" and sweep in to exchange bonds for cash (ie credit). I can't remember the name of the program.
Something like 95% of USD circulating the globe is in the form of "credit money" which is payable in US currency. It's bank generated credit.
I have no desire to have this conversation, I've had it many times before, but I will say:
1. Men have absolute 100% control of their reproductive rights - they walk away all the time. They can walk away at ANY time. No one is telling men that can't use a condom while some forms of contraception for women are currently under attack and trying to be outlawed. Are you saying because you can't control someone else's body your rights are being infringed upon? What about rape? Should the rapist have control over his victim's body because he inseminated her by force? If I donated a kidney to you, now something of mine is inside you, should I have a say in how you live your life? What more control do you want?
2. Women can't just walk away and they have a MUCH larger burden with respect to lack of control of their reproductive rights and I have NO DOUBT that if nature had placed the burden of carrying the product of those reproductive decisions with men and not women, men would still have 100% control - you know because you have to go to work.
3. There are fundamental differences in the two sexes that can seem unfair - blame nature. Men aren't required to support their children everywhere and plenty of men do not.
4. BTW...it's not lost on me that this conversation almost NEVER revolves around men's right to terminate a pregnancy if they choose and it nearly 100% of the time revolves around forcing a woman to carry to term. I can't remember the last time I saw men at rallies wanting the right to terminate pregnancies too...lol...unless you know of pro-forced termination men's groups?
Last edited:
Nice side step, but that’s fine I don’t want to have that conversation either. We may get a vacation out of it and that’s about it
Obligatory:
How family courts are organized and the laws they enforce have nothing to do with whether or not someone has basic rights of choice and autonomy. These are linked issues but not at all the same issue. Basic human rights do not change - laws do.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,500
No expert, but have tried to understand this over the years.
Normally healthy banks (that have assets but need liquidity) normally lend to each other - which is what the LIBOR rate used to be - its being changed to something else but essentially a bank would provide collateral - say a treasury bond - and the other bank would provide cash. But if the lending bank suspects the borrowing bank is in bad shape, they won't make the loan.
Banks can also go to the fed open market operations - aka fed open window - and do the same sort of thing - only at a higher interest rate. If the bank is not solid - then the fed discounts the collateral. The fed also uses the market value of the collateral - not the face value - ie its marked to market.
We really don't know - but since this wasn't available to SVB, I have to assume they were stone cold bankrupt, not illiquid. The part of that however that doesn't add up, is why didn't the treasury close the bank at that point.
Also, they keep saying a lot of it was long term treasuries that were underwater and couldn't fire sale, along with $21B of MBS's. For the MBS's maybe, but there is no fire sale on treasuries. Its the deepest and most liquid market that exists. Treasuries can be sold at any time easily, but you will get their current value based on the interest rate discount. So I have to assume there treasuries were too far under water to help either.
They were trying to see additional capital, so maybe they were left to try to do so, but when the bank run started, it wouldn't have been enough anyway.
All guessing, no answers, and I doubt we will ever be told.
Yes. Correct. And we have a Constitution to keep OUR GOVERNMENT in check on such matters.
That government does NOT get to control how I protect myself and my loved ones. Period. What states are doing is straight up unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights. The right to self preservation is the right to live. What comes before that?
PS Open minded and closed minded people vote for such laws, but that doesn't make them Constitutional.
Last edited:
Ok, so a man has the right to walk away from the child, but then bare the consequences of getting court ordered to pay child support or go to jail.
Why can’t we have the same thing for women? Abort a child and go to jail.
It’s her right to terminate, but bare the consequences.
My point is that women are absolved from the consequences of their actions, men are not. That is not equality.
This is exactly what we are seeing with the banks. They have been absolved from the consequences of their bad actions. More regulation is not going to fix anything as long as they know tax payers will bare the costs of their bad decisions.
If they were allowed to fail and go under, however painful it might be short term to the employees and stock holders, it would serve as a deterrent.
Panics are as much based on perception as they are reality. The public announcements by the CEO spooked everyone.
Long term treasuries were underwater for SVB because of the numerous rate increases from the Fed which occurred after SVB acquired them (rates up, bond values drop). Selling treasuries required SVB to realize the losses because they were worth less. IMO the blindspot behind Basel III is that it doesn't require banks to market-to-market some of their bonds. Of course central banks and govts insist on this feature because they want to encourage banks to buy sovereign debt.
Under the BTFP the Fed swaps out the collateral at par. source
This discussion is never going to be about 100% fairness or equality - how can it be when the burden is not shared equally? One sex takes more of the burden than the other by no fault of her own and simply because that is how evolution shaped mammalian reproduction. This is never going to be 100% fair but just because it's not 100% fair doesn't mean it's all or nothing.
Also, based on your argument, the logical change wouldn't be to deny a woman her rights but to change the law in such a way that men could register their objection to the pregnancy and possibly be relieved of supporting the child. Women need not have their rights taken away to give what you perceive as your absent right to not support a child. That's a different discussion for one reason and one reason only - your objection has more unintended consequences on the other side of this argument - WOMEN who don't want to give birth to a child.
Last edited:
it’s not about being 100% fair. Most parental laws were written before birth control and before women could be independent to rightfully protect women back then. However, technology has changed, workforces has changed, women’s right have changed, yet the laws remain the same and instead of protecting women it gives them incentive for bad behavior.
Rape is something like 1% or 2% causes of abortion. Something like 30% or 40% of these women have had more than one. They treat it like birth control at this point, not a last resort type of deal.
These laws should be updated with times, but they are not. That’s not asking to be 100% fair, that’s a logical step that should’ve been taken to reflect the current reality.
Ok...but in the meantime, while our elected state officials do nothing and no laws are changed I still feel like what a woman chooses is none of my business. What ANYONE else chooses to do to their body is not my business. That's my stance...because I believe in autonomy and freedom of choice and liberty.
Also, the thing about stats...those 1-2% are real people with real problems...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,500
Per your link, it looks like that program started on the 12th - but SVIP failed on the 10th. So it wasn't there for them. Maybe why the others didn't fail Monday?
It also looks like the FDIC (ie we the people) are guaranteeing the collateral at par - so the fed can accept it at par. So were on the hook again - from your link :
- Collateral Valuation: It appears that the FDIC is approving a 100% advance rate for the loans (i.e., no discount to face value). The collateral will be valued at par. The margin will be 100% of par value.
The federal government is bailing out the depositors who were uninsured by the FDIC.
IIRC the program was resurrected from 2008 and yes the decision to bring it back was made after SVB failure. This differs from the normal path used by banks when they need reserves which you alluded to earlier.
Most. Just to confirm you do realize that large businesses by virtue of their size would have a majority of their deposits at risk.
- Status