So taxpayers will pay, but through their bank deposits and mortgages?
It's hard not to see how this will be "private the profits, democratise the losses".
It's hard not to see how this will be "private the profits, democratise the losses".
The depositors took risks by lending their money to such a risky bank for better returns in lieu of the risk. It doesnt matter whether SVB gave 0% interest. It provided other amenities, services and opportunities instead - things which other banks could not take the risk to do. Now these banks who played by the rules and the rest of the people and businesses who played it safe, will have to foot the bill for the risk that those depositors took. This literally says "If you are big enough you can take any risk to win big and have the public pay for it if you screw it up". That's something not afforded to a small business owner. So people who say that there is one rule for the ultra rich and another rule for the majority, they are right.
Additionally removing the burden of the deposits from SVB will allow it to recover some of its lost asset value. The state took over its liabilities now.
Its not ridiculous. Its how the free market works. Its a choice. There were other banks that were compliant with the regulation that !protects! the bank and its depositors. This bank wasn't one of them. People put their money in this bank anyway. It makes little difference if many startups were forced by their VCs to put their money in that bank - they chose to go with those VCs.
> What was the safe, responsible thing to do? Put it in one of the “too big to fail” banks instead, given that those are guaranteed to be bailed out should they encounter difficulties?
The first thing to do was to put their money in banks that have not lobbied for exemption from the regulations that protect the bank and its depositors' money from exactly what is happening right now.
The second thing would be to put it in multiple banks that are not exempt from that regulation to spread around the risk.
The third thing would be to spread the risk around many investment tools and banks.
It turns out that there ARE startups that did precisely that, and they were not affected by the SVB thing in the slightest manner.
> Let’s not pretend that literally keeping cash in a savings account is irresponsible risk taking.
It is unless it is a state run bank, period. This is the free market, and if the organization that you are putting your money into is a private organization, you are simply taking a risk. If that does not sound good, then it means that all the rhetoric about free market vs government should be revised.
Yes. They noticed other banks would not take their money, but SVB would. There is a reason SVB was willing to take their money while others would not.
https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/svb-chief-...
This isn't crypto, you can guarantee that these sales will be investigated extensively.
> If you're already bailing the bank out, oust the management, claw back what you can, but don't wipe out share holders or bond holders.
You don’t get it: the bank is bailed out using funds of shareholders and bondholders. Taxpayers aren’t bailing out SVB, you are. If you don’t like it, well, I recommend selling your investments and keeping your money in regular savings accounts: the deal is, at the basic, very simple: if the company you own screwed up, your entire equity may be used to made those whom it screwed up whole, and you should be happy that your liability is limited to your equity only.
That's the bailout part. If the government is stepping in to bail people out via making up for any difference of uninsured deposits from FDIC funds then it's no longer a question of risk/being wrong/luck. The depositors were taking risk just as the shareholders were taking risk. If they didn't like it, well they could have kept the money in their mattresses.
I'm totally with you that everyone has to accept the risks they're taking. This is creating a distortion field here for certain types of risk taking.
Even if we ignore the bailout, I don't think the story is as simple as you put it. There was a run on the bank with VCs telling companies to withdraw their funds. From a stock market perspective this could be considered manipulation.
When I invest in a bank I'm also relying on the government's role as a regulator. If they failed in their role, or the government actions contributed to the failure of the bank, or they had other courses of action, why should I be on the hook for the consequences?
Maybe this course of action was necessary to stabilize the situation and protect against more bank runs. It still doesn't feel right. It feels like something we'll pay for in the future.
Sure, which is why I’m not opposed to depositors taking some haircut. But that’s only more reason to wipe the shareholders to the last penny.
> The depositors were taking risk just as the shareholders were taking risk.
No, they were not, that’s the whole point. They took completely different kinds of risks. Irrespective to what degree the taxpayers are encumbered with extending the bail out loans, shareholders are the ones who are expected to foot any bill first and foremost.