|
The X-man cometh posted:I'm just a poor bumpkin in Flyover Country, but aren't there more than 1 bank in Silicon Valley? Aren't VCs just going to move their money to Bank of America or Chase? There are plenty of banks in Silicon Valley, SVB was special in that they were willing to give tech people risky loans if they held deposits there, such as loaning against unvested RSUs.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Aramis posted:The thesis is that VCs and startup have been seen as bringing so much economic growth that they've been allowed, by and large, to avoid government oversight, regulation, etc... (e.g. Uber). However, if their actions cause too big of a mess, it'll lead to a "playtime is over, kids" moment. They are saying that this current mess might very well be the one that does it. That's the gist of it, but it's missing an important detail. Systemically important financial institutions are a special class of firms that are covered by existing regulation and get oversight directly from the Federal Reserve. Historically that's just been banks, but they might have the authority to expand it to other types of firms. Firms in traditional finance who risk becoming classified as SIFIs fight like hell not to be because the regulations are onerous. It's not clear that the VC firms have the foresight to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
Hard to feel bad for the guys who decided to - skip out on fire insurance (manage their reserve poorly) - skip out on flame retardant building materials (have a lovely IR team) - deep fry a turkey (bank with tech/VCs, who are the worst) - in a torn-up bucket over an open flame next to a gas tank (touch crypto)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
drk posted:There are plenty of banks in Silicon Valley, SVB was special in that they were willing to give tech people risky loans if they held deposits there, such as loaning against unvested RSUs. Rodents of Size Unusuals
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
jokes posted:Hard to feel bad for the guys who decided to Ah but have you considered that any bank could hypothetically be destroyed by a wildfire that's nobody's fault and therefore boohoohoo have a heart*, people are hurting, now isn't the time for your cruel class warfare, a family's yacht is at stake? *Having a heart is not for everyone. If you fall on hard times and can't pay your debts gently caress you, tough love is the only prescription or you'll never learn personal responsibility and also what about the deficit and inflation we can't just print money because you want it
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
If corporations, and therefore banks, are people we should tell them to set up a loving GoFundMe. If it's good enough for people who are staring into the abyss, unable to pay for their kids chemo then it should work fine for these fine, upstanding corporations too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Bipartisan legislation to reign in tech companies? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
I hope y'all are not too disappointed to hear that the FDIC was created solely to restore faith in the banking system after the banking system blew its own feet off, not to protect people-- that's a side effect and something used to sell it to the American people. To its credit it's not funded by taxpayers though which is nice. Banking history is funny, it's mostly bankers loving themselves up enough that it hosed up the country/world, and the banks then ask for governmental intervention/regulation. Regulation that the banks, then, fight against publicly and circumvent causing more regulation and destroying certain parts of the economy. Then, the Panic of 1907 was about to destroy the US banking system until a bunch of super rich bankers decided to fix things like a proto-Fed/FDIC. The government (likely at that point totally under the thumb of the same guys who were in JP Morgan's brownstone during the Panic of 1907) then was like "what the gently caress are you stupid assholes doing" and did a 5-year commission where they figured everything out and created the Fed, because a centralized banking system (inspired by the Europeans) is way better, more stable, and more efficient than whatever the gently caress American banking was before 1913. In 1933, with the 1933 Banking Act, after greedy bankers destroyed the world economy in the Depression, the FDIC was formed along with other regulations that stopped banks from doing certain hosed-up speculation things. Every 10 years or so, banks blow something up and the government regulates them or does some big move. In those interceding years, the Fed tries its hardest to gently caress the banks up. Cut to today, and it's the same goddamn thing. Banks blow themselves up, calls for regulation to stop them from blowing themselves up, and in ~10 years they'll do it again while screaming about the regulation the entire time. I'm a bit surprised that banks weren't as gung-ho about crypto and its unregulated status as you'd think considering the internal rhetoric that banks have on regulations. jokes fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Solution: Official federal bank that gives 0 interest or benefits but also has 0 fees and is literally backed by the treasury itself. Run it out of the post office again if you need to, a lot of the necessary laws are probably still on the books. Then get rid of the fdic entirely and let commercial banks invest in whatever the gently caress they want and treat depositors who want to be risky by banking with them as investors. I've written for 2600 back in the day so I get the paranoia of a government-controlled bank, but honestly we've lost the privacy war decades ago and the government already has the ability to freeze any US bank account so its not like there's any real difference
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Solution: Official federal bank that gives 0 interest or benefits but also has 0 fees and is literally backed by the treasury itself. Run it out of the post office again if you need to, a lot of the necessary laws are probably still on the books. part of the value of a bank is it re-invests your saved capital, which is massively socially beneficial you have just abolished that entirely for no apparent reason?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Solution: Official federal bank that gives 0 interest or benefits but also has 0 fees and is literally backed by the treasury itself. Do you want zombie Andrew Jackson? Because this is how we get zombie Andrew Jackson. (we had this, twice, the last version was killed by Jackson who really hated it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
jokes posted:Hard to feel bad for the guys who decided to I object to the fried turkey here because you can have good fried turkey. you can never have good coinz poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If corporations, and therefore banks, are people we should tell them to set up a loving GoFundMe. I wonder how many of the workers these business owners who are crying crocodile tears over are going to get laid off anyway. Like the PPP loan poo poo where businesses swore they just needed some cash to keep employing people through lockdowns and then they just fired a bunch like they were always gonna and kept the cash. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Solution: Official federal bank that gives 0 interest or benefits but also has 0 fees and is literally backed by the treasury itself. Run it out of the post office again if you need to, a lot of the necessary laws are probably still on the books. This post reads like an originalist or something. Such a terrible idea. Banks serve a vital, and good, purpose in economies. They just also do horrible poo poo that is massively profitable and destroys things. The paranoia of a government-controlled bank is not a privacy thing, the paranoia of a government-controlled bank is that the banking system becomes wholly political and not economical. Imagine if Trump, for example, ran the banking system without oversight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
jokes posted:This post reads like an originalist or something. Having the entire banking system be government? Yeah that would be bad. But that's not what is being pitched here, and ironically isn't even what the First and Second Banks of the United States were. It's about having a government run option to be competition and guarantee a certain degree of access. Using a parallel example: UPS and FedEx aren't going out of business because I can throw a letter in a blue box if I want, but they sure as poo poo dont' go out of their way to service everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
jokes posted:
But also he wouldn't run it personally, he'd appoint the people who do, his appointee is running the Fed now so again Eh jokes posted:
So of course the first ones to fail immediately start screaming if they don't get bailouts like the big boys they're taking the whole economy down with them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Isn't a government bank account that just holds your money for you with no interest just a CBDC
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:But that's not what is being pitched here, and ironically isn't even what the First and Second Banks of the United States were. It's about having a government run option to be competition and guarantee a certain degree of access. I can't imagine a banking function other than, like, individual loans and checking accounts that a government bank would provide that it isn't current providing through the Fed and Treasury. I would like to see retail banking fees completely prohibited by law though, and having a bank account should be way more accessible than it is. The Fed could probably resolve this with a restriction on member banks. I think the primary gate for people who are unbanked is lack of sufficient documentation so I don't know how a government option would help in that regard without a change in the laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
looks like everybody was wrong about why SVB failed. here's the WSJ with the real scoop: https://twitter.com/bcmerchant/status/1635331043216736256
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Are homosexual board members too busy loving each other in the butt to mitigate interest rate risk, the Journal is just asking the important questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
jokes posted:I would like to see retail banking fees completely prohibited by law though How exactly would this work? Its not like banks dont have expenses, and they aren't making any real money on the accounts of people living paycheck to paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are homosexual board members too busy loving each other in the butt to mitigate interest rate risk, the Journal is just asking the important questions. we’d have to ask the partners of Capital Under Management about that
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
drk posted:How exactly would this work? Its not like banks dont have expenses, and they aren't making any real money on the accounts of people living paycheck to paycheck. You would have to force them to give people free checking accounts, if you didn't do that then yeah they'd just close poor people's accounts once you banned them from profiting off the need to have one in the modern economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Foo Diddley posted:looks like everybody was wrong about why SVB failed. here's the WSJ with the real scoop: I haven't been this mad since that one politician mistook a janitorial sink for an Islamic washing station.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
It sounds like the ideal for a postal bank or whatever would be to be pretty much literally a checking account with an associated debit card and the relevant other rigamarole such as being able to cancel/reverse poo poo if your card gets stolen, allowing literally all Americans access to these services with either no bullshit or fees, or with some extremely modest and fixed version of same. And nothing else, necessarily. This seems like it would be socially useful, the private sector can try to lure you in with benefits and bonuses and interest rates, while US Government is just "you put 100 USD in? you can take 100 USD out later."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
drk posted:How exactly would this work? Its not like banks dont have expenses, and they aren't making any real money on the accounts of people living paycheck to paycheck. Tie it into some other profitable aspect they rely on the government for, such as FDIC insurance or being a member of the federal reserve banking system. Or, better yet, just ban all fees that disproportionately affect poor people like overdraft fees or maintenance fees for accounts with a low balance. Big banks need the government to survive, and they live very, very well. The federal government does very little with that titty-sucking relationship and doesn't ask for nearly enough. jokes fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Honestly, the stupid way we do everything a government run bank account would just be managed by private banks the government pays to hold them. Then when one of those banks fails it would forever be held up a horrible failure of socialism. I know that makes no sense, but our system is often about making overly complicated things that claim to do X but just funnel money to private business bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
I'm going to slam my dick in a car door and say it was because I was distracted by diversity requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
jokes posted:Tie it into some other profitable aspect they rely on the government for, such as FDIC insurance or being a member of the federal reserve banking system. Or, better yet, just ban all fees that disproportionately affect poor people like overdraft fees or maintenance fees for accounts with a low balance. I get that you could force the banks to do this through any number of means. But, the money to service these customers has to come from somewhere. If all fees are banned, that most likely means lower savings account interest and higher mortgage and other loan rates. Maybe that would be for the better, but its zero sum. (and FYI, overdraft fees have been opt in for over a decade)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Overdraft fees still make, like, $1.5bn for Wells Fargo alone whether it's opt-in or opt-out. It's a poor person tax-- specifically a broke person tax. It's also such a small drop in the bucket compared to the benefits of being a member of the federal reserve system and banks' revenues as a whole. If they decide to make up that shortfall in revenue by increasing lending rates for home buyers by 1bp, that's better than a broke person tax. It's up to the big bank to leverage economies of scale to benefit the consumer and keep their mortgage rate low to stay competitive, not to have poor people-- broke people-- subsidize homeowners' mortgages. Big banks should be held to the highest standards, and if they're the more expensive option for lending, then that enables smaller banks to be more competitive. jokes fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
I agree banks should be cooler and nicer
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
drk posted:I get that you could force the banks to do this through any number of means. But, the money to service these customers has to come from somewhere. If all fees are banned, that most likely means lower savings account interest and higher mortgage and other loan rates. Maybe that would be for the better, but its zero sum. Or maybe just lower profit. Banks don't have to charge bullshit fees to survive, they do it because it makes them more money, that's why fees have exploded as the financial sector consolidated and people were left with fewer options. If banks could get away with paying lower interest or charging higher mortgage rates they would do so already, they aren't choosing their savings rates just to be nice. If I called up Chase and said "hey from now on I will pay you a billion dollars a year in fees on my checking account just to be a nice guy" they are not going to say "oh great we can use this to lower mortgage rates and pay savers more because we're already making enough profit because we're so kind" they will just keep the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Is this a bank thread now? I worked as a teller for a bank in Texas once up a time. It was fairly big, lots of branches in Texas and Mexico, so you can safely assume that they did a lot of banking with migrant workers and generally not well-off. The money they made off overdraft fees was incredible, as they made sure to structure checking card debits so that each card swipe made in any given 24 hour period would stack and then be debited as if each incurred after you hit zero dollars. So far example if I, a normal human, had $15 in my account, then in any order went and bought gas for $17, went to Jack in the Box and spent $7, and also got a jug of milk for $3 at the store, then the next day I'd be hit with 3 overdraft charges for $25 each. Oh, and you want to opt out of overdraft charges altogether? Well you gotta go into the bank and sign formal documents, all while you get shamed because someone somewhere might see you as poor because your card got declined. Really colored my view on banks, working there. I got fired after 6 months for losing money, but no worries. They're still very much around and very big...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
Lol before that was banned banks pretended maximizing overdraft fees was a service to customers somehow. "Oh we reordered your debits to put your mortgage payment first, so your two dollar soda and gum purchases earlier that day each got hit with a $25 overdraft fee too even though you still had the money in your account then. This was a favor for you because you wouldn't want your mortgage payment rejected while your gum purchase went through right?" "But you approved all of them!" "Yes but if we hadn't you'd be grateful right now that your mortgage didn't default thanks for the fees!" They also made the same arguments at the time that if you banned this they'd ask go broke or they'd have to raise mortgage rates or whatever, but that turned out to be BS because rates are set by supply and demand, they were just milking overdrafts because they could and banning reordering transactions didn't have any drawbacks at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Are there no "no fee" banks in the U.S.? Like here in Canada there are a few banks that are no fees, no minimum balance, unlimited transactions. The trade-off is there are no tellers: you have to do everything online, over the phone, or through an ATM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are homosexual board members too busy loving each other in the butt to mitigate interest rate risk, the Journal is just asking the important questions. The Journal is back with the latest news, sources close to the situation say that they're too busy mitigating the risk of lovely dick to determine if this quarter's bond spread meets the fiduciary duties as described in their charter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Are there no "no fee" banks in the U.S.? Like here in Canada there are a few banks that are no fees, no minimum balance, unlimited transactions. The trade-off is there are no tellers: you have to do everything online, over the phone, or through an ATM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Are there no "no fee" banks in the U.S.? Like here in Canada there are a few banks that are no fees, no minimum balance, unlimited transactions. The trade-off is there are no tellers: you have to do everything online, over the phone, or through an ATM. There are also many brick and mortar banks where you can avoid fees other than maybe overdraft fees by, for example, fulfilling one of several conditions, such as: Having a loan from that bank. Having direct deposits to your account of at least $XXX dollars per month (usually around $500) Having a total balance from all your accounts be at last $XXXX (usually 1500 to 2500 from what I’ve seen). WithoutTheFezOn fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Are there no "no fee" banks in the U.S.? Like here in Canada there are a few banks that are no fees, no minimum balance, unlimited transactions. The trade-off is there are no tellers: you have to do everything online, over the phone, or through an ATM. Yeah there are a ton of banks like that. My bank, ally, is all online and usually gives pretty great savings rates. Doesn't mean people aren't caught off guard every day or, worse, just assume it's fine and normal for your bank to stuff a shitload of overdraft fees onto a broke person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Yeah they're used as an excuse for predatory fees by shittier banks ("well if poor people don't want to get caught with surprise fees they are free to take financial responsibility and shop around") Their existence also disproves the idea that banks need to gently caress you up with fees to survive, or that banks which charge those fees use them to offer better savings rates or mortgage rates to customers instead of just booking them as more profit (Bank of America charges a ton of bullshit fees and their interest rates also suck rear end because gently caress you)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:17
|
|