Silicon Valley Bank
- Thread starter RxCowboy
- Start date
The restrictions on banks that stopped them to invest more aggressively were rolled back by the previous administration.
That's easy to say, but you're going to have to be more specific than "it's Trump's fault." How did Trump modify the law that caused this to happen?
That’s weak ass shit considering Barney frank has his fingerprints all over this
Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis
The measure designed to ease rules on all but the largest U.S. banks passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support.
From the article:Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis
The measure designed to ease rules on all but the largest U.S. banks passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support.www.cnbc.com
"The measure eases restrictions on all but the largest banks."
lol
Also from the article:Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis
The measure designed to ease rules on all but the largest U.S. banks passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support.
“When the president signs this, we put community banks back in the mortgage lending business, which is really exciting for me,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., told CNBC on Wednesday.
So, Trump eased restrictions on community banks. SVB was an investment bank, an altogether different critter. This didn't answer my question. All it did was attempt to blame Trump. Why didn't Dodd-Frank prevent this? And why is the Biden administration bailing SVB out?
Trump
Where does it say investment banks are not part of the reduced restrictions?
The only banks mentioned specifically in the article, "“When the president signs this, we put community banks back in the mortgage lending business, which is really exciting for me,”" were community banks and were mentioned by a Democrat. So, again, if you want to convince me that Trump undid Dodd-Frank and that caused the collapse of SVB that particular article is inadequate.
Last edited:
That hardly eliminates other types of banks.
it also says
sounds like saying community bank was bs from politicians to make the law sound good.
Sounds like BS from Democrat politicians trying to make the Republican changes sound good, but you still haven't explained anything.
"All but the largest banks" would be investment banks, wouldn't they?
The article says the law raises the threshold to 250 billion. The banks that failed were under that.
Then they shouldn't have posed a systemic risk. Why are they being bailed out?
Yes it was
To prevent a run on all banks.
Do you think that a nationwide run on banks would work well for the American people?
jobob85
Bent Member
I'm not 100% sure why the FDIC had to get involved. SVB made up less than 1% of the top 20 US banks asset wise. Maybe to show stability? SVB took what should have been short term money and investen in long bonds. When they had a cash crunch those bonds were worth much less based on rising interest rates. Why the FDIC didn't let the depositors that were uninsured pass the $250k limit get 60 cents on the dollar and let a larger more stable bank take them over I don't know.
So rising interest casued by inflation created by fed policy for the last 3 presidential terms because of a mortage banking collapse after deposit to loan ratios were allowed to expand by three fold and FannieMae and FreddieMac exploited these rules and loaned 110% LTV on new home purchases gets us to SVB.
Why would there be a run on all banks? Regional banks with smaller deposits are FDIC protected. This is a nonsensical answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I am reading this and thinking “investors sometimes lose money”. That’s capitalism. Why did the feds step in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
