Their executives sold at least 4 million dollars worth of stock in the final weeks because they knew it was folding. Giant paychecks, years of bonuses, one final sale and a golden parachute to a new company. They are in the club and they will get another high paying job next month.
executives of companies regularly sell shares to diversify their personal holdings. Doesn't necessarily mean they knew what was coming. These things are usually on regular schedules to avoid the appearance of insider trading.
I posted what needs to be done on another thread about 45 minutes ago.
Congress and Executive Branch need to give bank regulators the authority to be tougher on banks. We (U.S. citizens) need to require banks to maintain significantly more cash in none interesting bearing funds, basically in the equivalent of a checking account.
Banks won't want greater regulation. Banks will say it cuts down on their ability to make money. Some of you maintain at least 3 months of cash in your checking account but I am sure most of you do not. Most of you would be unhappy if you were told to do so. Same thing with banks. Requiring them to keep more cash will mean lower bank profits but it would mean a healthier U.S. banking system.
Which is more left wing than either party is interested in going. People arguing about if this is Biden or Trump--it is either both or neither. Ultimately it is the corporate executives themselves doing this to Americans.
If you want regulations to benefit people more than the bank, you want government to be further left than the democratic party, and I agree with you.
I intentionally did not box myself in a corner. I did not state a specific dollar number that banks should be required to keep in cash at U.S. Treasury. Banks are already required to keep $x.xx dollars in cash. The current amount for each bank depends on the balance sheet fitness. I am just saying increases need to occur. I do not know of any other solution except the ultimate left solution: Paul Krugman about 15 years ago in his NYT column called for government take over of the banks. If banks do not want to be taken over by federal government, the need to keep $x.xx in a cash account at U.S. Treasury.
The only thing that is guaranteed with record rainfall in California is record fires. Its going to be a horrible autumn. Santa Ana winds blowin' hot from the north ....
In the old days....I remember a wind.... ..that would blow through the canyons. It was a hot wind called a Santa Ana and it carried the smell.....of warm places. It blew the strongest before dawn across the Point. We would sleep in our cars......and the smell of the wind would wake us.
And each morning, we knew this would be a special day
The opening credits to the excellent film "Big Wednesday", which chronicles the friendship, lifestyle and the "coming of age" of three surfers over 12 years ...
One solution is to establish financial institutions that are mere transaction facilitators. A customer would pay a monthly or annual fee to maintain an account and a small fee on each transaction. The financial institution could be profitable without the need to loan out the depositor funds and the depositors would not receive interest.
Oh yes, let's read more fake news from more liberal sites. Not.
I don't know which is more embarrassing: that you used a "not" joke in 2023, or that you think FORBES is a leftist outlet.
If they are taking pot shots at Trump, its pretty safe to assume they are liberals.
You just can't handle the fact that Biden created this banking crisis with his anti-bank policies. They have come home to roost like Trump conservatives predicted.
People are arguing about whether the government should bail out these depositors. Can someone explain to me how much money that actually is? I think I read the bank had about $200 billion in deposits. If they sell all their assets right now, what does it amount to? I think how much the government actually had to pay out would be an important factor in deciding whether or not the depositors should get bailed out?
Sorry I don't know much about this subject but am curious.
People are arguing about whether the government should bail out these depositors. Can someone explain to me how much money that actually is? I think I read the bank had about $200 billion in deposits. If they sell all their assets right now, what does it amount to? I think how much the government actually had to pay out would be an important factor in deciding whether or not the depositors should get bailed out?
Sorry I don't know much about this subject but am curious.
They had like $173B in deposits. All but 2.5% were exposed (non-FDIC insured).
Biden talks a big game about taxing the rich. If he were serious about this, he'd have let the whole thing collapse. People with more than $250k in deposits are the rich. Now we're forced back into the stone ages of Quantitative Easing and letting inflation run rampant.
Krugman's suggestion of a government takeover of banks was temporary and based on successful actions in Sweden and Iceland, I believe. Government under George W. Bush was already keeping the entire financial system afloat--many trillions in fed short-term lending were keeping the market liquid at the end of 2008, and they were bailing out Countrywide, ING(?), and Fannie and Freddie, et al. But there the terms were such that the execs still profited and avoided jail and liquidity wasn't provided to the general populace, nor housing. With a gov't takeover, the Great Recession might not have had such a hard, slow landing.
One solution is to establish financial institutions that are mere transaction facilitators. A customer would pay a monthly or annual fee to maintain an account and a small fee on each transaction. The financial institution could be profitable without the need to loan out the depositor funds and the depositors would not receive interest.
The only thing that is guaranteed with record rainfall in California is record fires. Its going to be a horrible autumn. Santa Ana winds blowin' hot from the north ....
In the old days....I remember a wind.... ..that would blow through the canyons. It was a hot wind called a Santa Ana and it carried the smell.....of warm places. It blew the strongest before dawn across the Point. We would sleep in our cars......and the smell of the wind would wake us.
And each morning, we knew this would be a special day
Big Wednesday Pt01 - Opening Credits - YouTube
Rollin' down the Imperial Highway With a big nasty redhead at my side Santa Ana winds blowing hot from the north And we as born to ride
the owners of that bank lost millions. Even billions collectively.
But sure, they were paid well until they lost their jobs. No need to feel bad for them. But they lost a carpload of money when their shares went to, and I can't overstate this, Z-E-R-O.
It goes beyond the ownership of this bank. The federal govt is bending rules of deposit insurance, at the cost of the taxpayer, either directly or indirectly. It's not as cut and dried as SVB as a siloed entity.
Bad message from the Fed and the Administration.
It is NOT a cost to the taxpayer. According to the joint statement issued by Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC: "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.”
This post was edited 30 seconds after it was posted.