eisfeld

Politicians dictating what science should say... what could possibly go wrong?

Completely misleading, that $2T number is the total par value of all bonds held by all banks apart from the top five which said they wont need it. The Federal Bank initiated a limited time (1 year) loan in case other banks run into liquidity issues due to long term bonds. You made it sound like the Fed is printing $2T and throwing it into the economy which obviously is not the case.

New York Post and Fox News. Not surprised they try to stir up outrage instead of neutral reporting on the actual causes and solutions.

They are flying in international air space in collaboration with their NATO partners which by the way have a lot more border with that area than Russia has. Do you think the drone flew all the way from the US there? NATO has a war in front of their door step. Flying a surveilance drone in the vicinity shouldn't surprise anyone. In fact they do regularily that. Here one such incident where Russia flew bombers in international air space near Alaska: https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-intercepts-russian-bombers-off-alaska-2-straight/story?id=97260923 How did the US react? They said it was no provocation and that it is not a rare occurance. They did not even think of downing them. And as placeholder wrote Russia even had repeated incidents where they crossed into foreign air space.

You don't conduct testing on an enemy vehicle in neutral air space during high tension risking escalation to full war. Doubly so when the other party has a vastly more powerful army. That would be beyond stupid in terms of a risk-reward trade-off.

Eh I have a feeling it wasn't the tourists who put fake license plates on the bikes they rented... they were probably not even aware. I'm always amazed at the xenophobic attitude and complete lack of common sense from local government of tourist places.

Where did you read that? I've read the linked CNN article as well as articles by Reuters and BBC, none mention the russian aircraft crashing. They just quote the official Kremlin statement that both their aircrafts returned to their base.

There is provoking and then there is direct, open confrontation on neutral ground (or airspace). It's absurd and has no upside for Russia.

Madness. Why would the Russians think this was a good idea? It seriously risks escalation and they have nothing to gain by doing this. It wont prevent the US from gathering intelligence in the area. Do they want to really get WW3 going? Putin is such a madman... <deleted>?

From the Land Traffic Act. Emphasis mine. "Coming from his right" means the people inside the circle.

Until people stop using multiple question marks and a space before punctuation marks. ????

The tricky part is how to value the bonds. Mark-to-market (MTM) or Hold-to-maturity (HTM). One could argue that SVB had a liquidity issue (using HTM) instead of a solvency issue (using MTM). But they handled the liquidity issue by selling the bonds which switches their value from HTM to MTM and therefore transforms everything into a solvency issue. Now if they were somehow able to solve the liquidity problem via other means than selling the bonds then the losses might not have been incurred. And that's where the FED stepped in, they solved the situation by providing liquidity to the bank so depositors can withdraw funds without it being forced to sell the bonds. Now they just need to sit and wait until the bonds mature. Many people here incorrectly seem to think that the FDIC saved the bank or the depositors. That's not true. FDIC saved a few small depositors but they are the minority. FDIC took over the bank and the FED saved the new bank from incurring too many losses via a liquidity facility. It's the best case scenario really for a messed up situation created by the executives of SVB. These people should somehow suffer for it but I am not sure if they will.

@maisodni you are being scammed.

May I remind you that it was you that wrongly claimed the depositors were getting bailed out by an insurance fund? Silly.

Funny you should speak about hysteria. Here we have a pretty good solution that keeps things stable and specifically was done to kill all the panicking and keep the economy working. And there you are, trying to use a lot of loaded terms, derogatorily calling startups and their investors which are what defines a big part of the silicon valley economy "tech gamblers". Who is trying to stir up hysteria now? If you understood the situation you wouldn't suggest just letting it unfold and seeing how the system would deal with it.

Money which he deposited in the bank and for which SVB had the assets, just locked up. Why are you bringing up celebrities as special cases again?

I'm sorry but laughable is just your spin on things. It's *not* a bailout as before. Clearly. Your example would apply to any kind of insurance. If you have a car accident and the insurance has to pay your medical bills it comes from a fund (no scare quotes needed) created by charging fees to car holders. Aren't car holder taxpayers too? You are saying anyone who has a car accident with insurance covering it is getting bailed out by the taxpayers. Talk about laughable. Of course you will hear celebrities be out front trying to demand help. They are celebrities. Being out front on the stage is what they do. What you didn't see is tens of thousands of normal people panicking and trying to figure out how they can navigate this <deleted>storm in the coming weeks. Doesn't mean they aren't there and that they vastly outnumber a few celebrities. You are just paying attention to the wrong thing.

It's not a bailout in the traditional sense. In bank bailouts of the past the banks were sitting on heavy losses and the tax payer stepped in to make the depositors and shareholders whole. This is not happening here. SVB had the assets, they were just locked up for a long duration. The depositors could have gotten their money back after X years. The problem is that thousands of small companies used SVB and if their funds are locked for long durations they would simply all go bankrupt if they could not find funding somehow. A huge number of people would suddenly be unemployed. And that's a bad outcome. That's why the government decided to step in and find a solution that helps all these people and the economy as a whole. If Barbara is no different than others then why did you explicitly list a few celebrities plus VCs and tech firms? What made them special that you decided to list them instead of using neutral wording like depositors. It baffles me how anyone can see this action as a bad thing. And no they did not change rules after the fact. It's a new, different situation and they found a solution. No rules have been changed. Unfortunately you didn't answer regarding your made up allegation that I altered your post.

I did not alter your post. I left venture capitalists and tech firms in the quote, so not sure what you are on about. Let me ask again a bit more clearly: what makes the deposits of the people you listed different from aunt Barbara from around the corner who had $500k in SVB from the sale of her house because she needs the funds for health care and paying for her housing at a elderly care facility?

Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 I believe this is the best outcome anyone could have hoped for. Bad bank goes away (management and shareholders wiped out), depositors who did nothing wrong get made whole and can access their funds after just 3 days and confidence is not tanking which could result in more bank runs.

Are you suggesting that celebrities and other people that you don't like should be excluded? What makes their deposits different from aunt Rabarba from around the corner?

Can you at least try to form arguments and engage in a discussion or will you just bluntly repeat the same thing?

And I assume you stash them in your bunker? We are talking about companies running their day-to-day business and not grandma losing her savings.

I guess that's one way to force return to office if you pay your employees by handing them little gold nuggets every month. Now you just need to establish an international gold nugget courier system so companies can also pay other companies.

And get scammed with a box of useless <deleted> and Lazada refusing refunds because you didn't pay to them. I'd rather have delivery issues instead.