Forbes Magazine: How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

[Confederate Soldier]

SVB was a small bank?

 

[struth]

SVB was a small bank?

just further proof the OP is clueless

 

[Lesh]

you asked if I thought he was competent…i said far more rhe. xiden

geez man

Then you answered a question never asked

 

[jotathought]

just further proof the OP is clueless

Wonder if "the banker" works at Silicon Valley Bank..?

 

[Clipper]

Right on cue the herd parrots the spoon fed woke bullshit from Tuck & Ron DuhShitstain.

 

[jotathought]

why didn’t xiden put this regulation back in place? he’s had years

Exactly correct ... Sanders is placing blame for "legislation he strongly opposed in 2018," yet didn't sponsor any new legislation.

If you oppose something and your party has complete control of the legislative and executive branch .. well .. sponsor a bill.

 

[struth]

Then you answered a question never asked

weird…i just assumed when you put a ? after you wrote “i assume you think trump was competent” it was a question

how foolish of me to think that was a question.

 

[Lesh]

weird…i just assumed when you put a ? after you wrote “i assume you think trump was competent” it was a question

how foolish of me to think that was a question.

Look up "assume" and then fuck off

 

[struth]

Look up "assume" and then fuck off

look up what ? means

 

[Nobody911]

One of Fed's primary responsibilities is to manage the country's money supply. In times of economic distress, the Fed may print money with no limit to stimulate the economy. While this approach may have some benefits, it also has some serious drawbacks. Here are the pros and cons of the Fed printing money without limit.

Pros:

1. Stimulate the economy: Printing money with no limit can provide an immediate boost to the economy. It means that banks and other financial institutions have access to more money, which they can lend out to businesses and consumers. This increased supply of money can lead to an increase in economic activity, which can help stimulate growth.

2. Increase liquidity: Printing money with no limit can increase the liquidity of the financial markets. It means that there is more money available to buy and sell assets, which can lead to higher prices, making it easier for businesses to raise capital and for consumers to access credit.

3. Reduce debt: Printing money with no limit can also help reduce the debt burden on the government. By providing access to more money, the government can pay off its existing debt or fund new programs without having to raise taxes or issue more bonds.

Cons:

1. Inflation: One of the most significant risks of printing money with no limit is inflation. As the supply of money increases, the value of each individual unit decreases, and prices tend to rise. This can lead to a spiral of inflation, where the cost of goods and services becomes increasingly out of reach for average consumers.

2. Debt: Printing money with no limit may reduce the immediate burden of debt on the government, but it can create a much larger long-term debt crisis. If the government is continually printing more money to meet its obligations, it can create a cycle of debt that could be disastrous for the economy in the long term.

3. Loss of credibility: If the Fed continues to print money with no limit, it could lead to a loss of credibility in the financial markets. Investors may become wary of investing in the US economy, which could lead to a decrease in the value of the US dollar and an increase in interest rates.

Conclusion:

Overall, while there are some potential benefits to printing money with no limit, the risks far outweigh the rewards. Inflation, debt and a loss of credibility can create serious issues for the economy, and the long-term consequences of such policies could be catastrophic. Therefore, the Fed should exercise caution when deciding whether or not to print money with no limit. Instead, it should focus on other policies such as lowering interest rates, expanding the money supply incrementally, or pursuing targeted stimulus programs to help support the economy during times of crisis.

But the Fed will finally end up by helping the Wall Street or the Main Street? History will repeat itself? Only time will tell! lol.

 

[Lesh]

One of Fed's primary responsibilities is to manage the country's money supply. In times of economic distress, the Fed may print money with no limit to stimulate the economy. While this approach may have some benefits, it also has some serious drawbacks. Here are the pros and cons of the Fed printing money without limit.

Pros:

1. Stimulate the economy: Printing money with no limit can provide an immediate boost to the economy. It means that banks and other financial institutions have access to more money, which they can lend out to businesses and consumers. This increased supply of money can lead to an increase in economic activity, which can help stimulate growth.

2. Increase liquidity: Printing money with no limit can increase the liquidity of the financial markets. It means that there is more money available to buy and sell assets, which can lead to higher prices, making it easier for businesses to raise capital and for consumers to access credit.

3. Reduce debt: Printing money with no limit can also help reduce the debt burden on the government. By providing access to more money, the government can pay off its existing debt or fund new programs without having to raise taxes or issue more bonds.

Cons:

1. Inflation: One of the most significant risks of printing money with no limit is inflation. As the supply of money increases, the value of each individual unit decreases, and prices tend to rise. This can lead to a spiral of inflation, where the cost of goods and services becomes increasingly out of reach for average consumers.

2. Debt: Printing money with no limit may reduce the immediate burden of debt on the government, but it can create a much larger long-term debt crisis. If the government is continually printing more money to meet its obligations, it can create a cycle of debt that could be disastrous for the economy in the long term.

3. Loss of credibility: If the Fed continues to print money with no limit, it could lead to a loss of credibility in the financial markets. Investors may become wary of investing in the US economy, which could lead to a decrease in the value of the US dollar and an increase in interest rates.

Conclusion:

Overall, while there are some potential benefits to printing money with no limit, the risks far outweigh the rewards. Inflation, debt and a loss of credibility can create serious issues for the economy, and the long-term consequences of such policies could be catastrophic. Therefore, the Fed should exercise caution when deciding whether or not to print money with no limit. Instead, it should focus on other policies such as lowering interest rates, expanding the money supply incrementally, or pursuing targeted stimulus programs to help support the economy during times of crisis.

But the Fed will finally end up by helping the Wall Street or the Main Street? History will repeat itself? Only time will tell! lol.

None of that has anything to do with SV bank going under

 

[Lesh]

None of that has anything to do with SV bank going under

This bank went under because the regs concerning how much money the bank had to have liquid were relaxed and the bank couldn't meet its obligations

 

[Yarddog]

SVB was a small bank?

He got it confused with the monopoly board again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

why didn’t xiden put this regulation back in place? he’s had years

That’s my question. If those deregulations were so bad, they could have reversed trumps changes.

Kinda like the whole train brakes issue, they’ve had 2 years they could have put them back in place.

Either the dems didn’t feel like those issue were that important, or, they didn’t change them because they were hoping something like this would happen so they could use it as a weapon.

 

[Yarddog]

That’s my question. If those deregulations were so bad, they could have reversed trumps changes.

Kinda like the whole train brakes issue, they’ve had 2 years they could have put them back in place.

Either the dems didn’t feel like those issue were that important, or, they didn’t change them because they were hoping something like this would happen so they could use it as a weapon.

Its because deregulation had nothing to do with it. It's just something they can use to blame someone else, and therefore it was very useful. Train derailments happen all the time and have for years.... now a few high profile derailments happen and suddenly its made political.

 

[excalibur]

 

[excalibur]

...

"I think this is an issue with respect to the securities they held, the concentration risk of their customer base, and their failure to hedge those risks," Ramaswamy said:


"However, here's a couple observations I will make. Silicon Valley Bank just last year made a $5 billion commitment to sustainable finance to ensure a better and more sustainable planet. If they had actually sought for a more sustainable balance sheet, they would have better done their job.


"But it's even deeper than that. I think that, if they do get bailed out, part of their bet is that they wanted to signal that they're one of the good guys by influence amongst influential people in Silicon Valley, even in Washington, D.C., by gesturing towards even committing $5 billion, which I don't think is responsible, towards something outside of what their core mission should have been focused on.


"And you know what? The sad part of the story is, if they do get bailed out, it will be because they bought that kind of social insurance. And I have written about this in 'Woke, Inc.'


“It's not that different than what companies like Goldman Sachs did back in the 2008 financial crisis. You play the right games, you influence the right people, you send the right virtue signals, you're the one that gets bailed out, if you're Goldman, instead of Lehman Brothers, who didn't do those things.


"This is crony capitalism. We saw the movie in 2008. I had a front-row seat to it. I was working in finance in New York City back then. It was my first job out of college. It would be a sad thing to see that story repeat itself. And this isn't a left-wing or a right-wing issue. It's an issue about the integrity of capitalism itself."


Ramaswamy said federal regulators should "let the market work," even if that means SVB's collapse ...

Failed Silicon Valley Bank Touted 'Empathy,' 'Diversity,' 'Transition to a Low-Carbon World'

"Our values guide everything we do," says Silicon Valley Bank's "Environmental, Social and Governance Report" for 2022.

cnsnews.com

 

[JohnDB]

The 16th largest bank in the US is a small or mid sized bank?

That sounds really really wrong to me.

How it got the medium, regional bank status when it had satellites in London, NY and elsewhere is the good question.

 

[jknowgood]

The ramifications of that are too high.

They need responsible policy to properly regulate so this never happens. That is the best solution.

Trump really fucked this country up and years later, we are still feeling to pain of Trump fuck ups, just like we did with Bush.

Republican presidents are so bad that you still feel pain years later.

Yes or no, should you give a loan to a minority no mater their credit score?

 

[Lesh]

That was a Republican Congress and a Republican President