On the one hand, you know that the WSJ editorial board is lying because their mouths are moving. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day. From a separate editorial: At this hour it remains unclear exactly how many vacation homes are owned by the uninsured customers of these institutions. Vicious.Also, perhaps regulators can explain exactly why there must be unlimited insurance payouts to those whose accounts are only insured up to $250,000.
I think the Biden administration was going to be criticized no matter what they did on this one. Had they supported deposits, they're soft soyboys who are only there for their woke leftist donors. Had they let the deposits burn, they're anti-innovation bureaucrats who are willing to spend billions in pork barrel for the CHIPS act but have no understanding of the vitality of small entrepreneurs. Had they supported investors, they're oligarchist cronies hell bent on preserving the moneyed class against the proletariat. Had they let investors burn, they're anticapitalist bureaucrats who do not properly support the market. Bernanke was 100% at "anything but the Great Depression" in 2008. This was due to the fact that he wrote his doctoral thesis on the Great Depression. As a result, we got helicopter money for rich people at any cost for any reason. Now I don't know, but I suspect, that at least a few people over the weekend said words to the effect of "What if - and work with me here - what if Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party... but in a post-BLM, post-Jan6 environment where we're in a proxy war with Russia" and after everyone plucked their silk boxers out of their colons they all set about to the diligent task of threading the needle. Here's the thing that the money is just starting to realize: Bitcoin is up stupid right now, like 20% in 3 days. Circle? I mean... there are three banks that didn't do as well as a stablecoin. And the stablecoin that everyone's been predicting the demise of? Tether is un-fucking-shaken. I think we're maybe six weeks before "DeFi" starts getting talked about as "shadow finance" because there will be enough big players who are flat-footed enough to recognize an actual innovative threat to really get the Wurlitzer going.“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
You and I both know that the WSJ editorial board and all of conservative media would find a way to criticize Biden if he came out tomorrow and said, "Yes, Hunter and I sold out the USA to China and as penance I'm resigning and I'll spend all of my remaining days after my jail sentence is over volunteering at an orphanage that caters to kids with special needs." But that doesn't mean they don't have a point here in the one specific instance. If their goal was preventing panic, the best thing they could have done was trot out the president to say, "We're doing nothing beyond the basic FDIC mandate, because there's no systemic risk here since SVB and Signature were gambling houses and the dice came up snake eyes. The average American's money is safe and sound." He's not preventing panic, and he's making it look more and more like the conservative talking points that Dems are a bunch of rich lawyers who care only about rich lawyers is basically true. I think they fucked up big time.
I dunno, man. The firehose of economic data I point at my face every morning is a giant stack of spooky shit. I think the fact that 2009 wasn't straight sorted has everyone jumping at loud noises. I agree with you - the Biden administration is gonna get pilloried no matter what but if you take a look at the WSJ's targeted stream of vitriol it's all about Powell. Believe it or not, they seem to hate interest rates more than they hate Democrats in this moment.
You'll remember that Yellen wanted to raise rates in 2018 or whenever, so Trump didn't renominate her in favor of Powell. Then when Powell was like, "yeah she was right" Trump threatened to fire him, too, until he got in line. Clearly that was Murdoch whispering through Hannity directly into Trump's ear. They don't have that direct line anymore, so they have to just browbeat him in the media.
In what sense? It's not as if anyone was going to lose their ass. Most estimates have the likely losses of uninsured accounts at 5-15%. They could have easily extended short term low interest loan of some percentage of deposits so that depositors could have met cash payment needs without interruption.
Contagion and runs at other banks is what they had to prevent. The depositor situation at SVB wasn’t the issue. I think it was the reverse, at any rate. Something like 90% of depositors had more. Most estimates have the likely losses of uninsured accounts at 5-15%.
No the actual realized losses on accounts above the 250k cap would have been in the 5-15% range. The bank still has lots and lots of assets and lots and lots of cash. So all those assets and all that cash get distributed to account holders before creditors, and if you had $1,000,000 there, then the best estimates I've read said you stood to lose about $75,000 (10% of the sum above $250k). Not chump change, but also not exactly Armageddon. Just do a thought experiment where instead of being the bank of tech, this was the preferred bank of the Factory Farmers of America or Big Oil or whatever, and that they're all vocal Trump supporters. Do you think it would have played out differently? I do. We can't live in a world where laws don't matter. Ever since the AUMF each president has taken it upon himself to rule by decree, each more so than the last. This is just another example to me.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/first-republic-bank-tumbles-drags-down-shares-other-regional-lenders-2023-03-16/ It’s a desperate struggle atm. The left hates SVB depositors. No political points were scored.