New bill would repeal the horrible bank law signed by Trump 5 years ago

[Harpy Eagle]

Just a half hour ago two CNN banking experts laughed at the idea that this bank failure was Trump's fault....

Thanks for watching CNN for us. If not for folks like you I would never know what they said on their shows.

I laugh at the idea it is Trump's fault as well.

 

[francoHFW]

Evidently, but you still have presented zero actual evidence the change in this law was the cause, or could have prevented what happened.

Yes yes, it was just a coincidence the bank quadrupled in size in four years and then blew up when something somewhere went wrong in the economy thanks to your Russian hero.... the kind of proof you want has never existed and never will, you have to look at the damn facts and THINK, for crying out loud, Super dupe....

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Warren, Booker and Menéndez are sponsoring a bill that would repeal some of the harmful banking deregulations that were passed by a majority of Republicans five years ago. These deregulations allowed banks like Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to take on excessive risks and eventually collapse, threatening the stability of our financial system.

Republicans should fix their karma a little by supporting this bill, which would restore critical oversight and capital requirements for large banks.

Democrats, led by Warren and Porter, unveil bill to repeal Trump-era bank law

The legislation, first reported by NBC News, would undo the core of a 2018 deregulation law by restoring enhanced scrutiny of banks with assets of $50 billion to $250 billion.

www.nbcnews.com

the 2018 legislation had nothing to do with the collapse of SVB, good god man learn to think for yourself

 

[blackhawk]

Far more than a day late and a dollar short odd they showed no interest in doing this until SVB shit show curtain went up. If one was cynical they might think they are doing this now because they believe it will benefit them politically.

 

[Catsnmeters]

....

you cant be that clueless.

The standard for cluelessness is if someone knows these two guys?

You sound silly.

 

[miketx]

CNN banking experts

Rotflmfao!

 

[Leo123]

Warren, Booker and Menéndez are sponsoring a bill that would repeal some of the harmful banking deregulations that were passed by a majority of Republicans five years ago. These deregulations allowed banks like Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to take on excessive risks and eventually collapse, threatening the stability of our financial system.

Republicans should fix their karma a little by supporting this bill, which would restore critical oversight and capital requirements for large banks.

Democrats, led by Warren and Porter, unveil bill to repeal Trump-era bank law

The legislation, first reported by NBC News, would undo the core of a 2018 deregulation law by restoring enhanced scrutiny of banks with assets of $50 billion to $250 billion.

www.nbcnews.com

Here come the 'blame Trump' loons.

 

[miketx]

Warren, Booker and Menéndez are sponsoring a bill that would repeal some of the harmful banking deregulations that were passed by a majority of Republicans five years ago. These deregulations allowed banks like Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to take on excessive risks and eventually collapse, threatening the stability of our financial system.

Republicans should fix their karma a little by supporting this bill, which would restore critical oversight and capital requirements for large banks.

Democrats, led by Warren and Porter, unveil bill to repeal Trump-era bank law

The legislation, first reported by NBC News, would undo the core of a 2018 deregulation law by restoring enhanced scrutiny of banks with assets of $50 billion to $250 billion.

www.nbcnews.com

Lol, re-spewing the fake news.

 

[Missourian]

And what G has been trying to point out is that regulations prevented banks from being locked into an investment scheme that opened them up to that much risk when the interest rate rises.

What is hard to understand with that point because it keeps getting ignored. It has been pointed out that this exact scenario is what a stress test looks for and would not allow to happen.

The stress tests would not have identified this weakness...

"But even if midsize banks had been subjected to the same scrutiny as large banks, it isn’t clear that stress testing them would have led to changes that would have prevented failure. Why? Because the tests asked the wrong questions. They failed to encompass the scenarios that ultimately led to SVB’s demise—large and rapid increases in interest rates.

In its February 2022 Stress Test Scenarios, the Fed’s “severely adverse scenario” asked banks to assess their riskiness over a three-year horizon in a hypothetical world in which the three-month Treasury rate stays near zero while the 10-year Treasury yield declines to 0.75% during the first quarter of 2022 and doesn’t change in the subsequent two quarters. Even in December 2021, however, the Federal Open Market Committee’s Summary of Economic Projections was showing the Fed likely targeting interest rates double those of 2022 in 2023, far higher than what it used for bank stress tests."

Opinion | Stress Testing Wouldn’t Have Saved Silicon Valley Bank

The Federal Reserve fails to account for interest-rate risk.

www.wsj.com

 

[j-mac]

I’m no expert, but even I know that if you’re up to your ears in 2% bonds, and the market is offering 5% bonds, you don’t have a risk manager for months on end, and your board is made up of no one other than 1 individual with banking experience, you’re going to fail….

This is just a go to for progressive liberal failures, ie; Blame Trump.

 

[Missourian]

And what G has been trying to point out is that regulations prevented banks from being locked into an investment scheme that opened them up to that much risk when the interest rate rises.

What is hard to understand with that point because it keeps getting ignored. It has been pointed out that this exact scenario is what a stress test looks for and would not allow to happen.

The law didn't eliminate the stress test for SVB...it only made it required every other year instead of every year.

"ALL BANKS TESTED
In 2022, all 34 U.S. banks monitored by the Fed with over $100 billion in assets will undergo the stress test, compared with 23 lenders last year.

That's because the Fed adopted a new standard in 2020 that stipulated that banks with less than $250 billion in assets only have to take the test every other year. That means that large regional banks, like Ally Financial Inc (ALLY.N) and Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB.O) are up again after a year off."

Explainer: What's new with the Fed's bank stress tests in 2022

The U.S. Federal Reserve will release the results of its annual bank health checks on Thursday. Under the "stress test" exercise established following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Fed tests banks' balance sheets against a hypothetical severe economic downturn, the elements of which change...

www.reuters.com

So this entire narrative is BS.

 

[two_iron]

Warren, Booker and Menéndez are sponsoring a bill that would repeal some of the harmful banking deregulations that were passed by a majority of Republicans five years ago. These deregulations allowed banks like Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to take on excessive risks and eventually collapse, threatening the stability of our financial system.

The home schooling out of the back of your "uncles" dildo shop is self-evident. Those weren't your "uncles", BTW.

Everything you and your thought leaders touch turns to shit.... and then dies. This is why the party that likes to fuck kids has to steal elections. They can't be trusted with anything.

 

[Lastamender]

Is this a joke?

Who the fuck are those guys?

It is just one guy.

 

[martybegan]

Yes yes, it was just a coincidence the bank quadrupled in size in four years and then blew up when something somewhere went wrong in the economy thanks to your Russian hero.... the kind of proof you want has never existed and never will, you have to look at the damn facts and THINK, for crying out loud, Super dupe....

SVB is a prog led bank used by progs, and somehow Trump is involved?

They worried more about DEI than risk.

 

[jc456]

Wow, you know so much about economics! Did you get your degree from Wikipedia or YouTube?’

what's funny is that good ole Barney Frank was on their board!!! Remember who he was? 2008 ring a bell? It seems bank collapse follows him.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It is just one guy.

Oh. Who is he?

 

[jc456]

Oh. Who is he?

looks like someone making fun of the smartest stupid people.

 

[g5000]

So it goes from 159% to a much lower one based on that.

Plus we don't know if their bond portfolio was underrepresented previously.

I don't think you realize that deposits are liabilities, not assets.

So as they increased their liabilities by 85 percent, their assets (bonds) were decreasing in value.

When the depositors began a bank run, SVB did not have enough liquidity to cover their liabilities.

 

[22lcidw]

Wow, you know so much about economics! Did you get your degree from Wikipedia or YouTube?’

The only reason we have not had an economic collapse is because we are last in line for nations to do so. We treat our financing and economics like other nations have done and caused their populations to become refugees and immigrants to our nation.

 

[jc456]

The only reason we have not had an economic collapse is because we are last in line for nations to do so. We treat our financing and economics like other nations have done and caused their populations to become refugees and immigrants to our nation.

well factually speaking, we're just printing money and that created the issue.