• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • Comment
  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

The revolution will be supervised.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Come on, man.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

I was promised a recession.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Economics / C.R.E.A.M. / Monday Morning Open Thread: Bring Out the Fire Extinguishers (& Soda Siphons)

Monday Morning Open Thread: Bring Out the Fire Extinguishers (& Soda Siphons)

by Anne Laurie|  March 13, 20237:07 am| 188 Comments

This post is in: C.R.E.A.M., Open Threads, Popular Culture, Show Us on the Doll Where the Invisible Hand Touched You

FacebookTweetEmail

hugh grant wants no part of this dumb shit pic.twitter.com/uBQ70QcZGf

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 12, 2023

Hugh Grant and Ashley Graham's red carpet exchange about "Vanity Fair " (he was talking about the 1848 novel about shallow society, she thought he was referring to the 2023 magazine after party) is my favourite #Oscars moment of all time.

— Katherine Singh (@katherineesingh) March 12, 2023


(Maybe just a little earlier than Trollope Thackeray’s novel… )

U.S. authorities launched emergency measures to shore up confidence in the banking system after the failure of Silicon Valley Bank threatened to trigger a broader financial crisis https://t.co/wkyeyVKevo pic.twitter.com/erwXJZfUoN

— Reuters (@Reuters) March 13, 2023


Factbox: Key elements of Fed's new US bank funding program https://t.co/JcHhwq3QL0 pic.twitter.com/H95RlIEfph

— Reuters (@Reuters) March 13, 2023

It's a "bailout" for account holders that doesn't save the institution from its mistakes. SVB is still dead, its officers are all out of their jobs. Like if we secured everyone's mortgages in 2008 but let the lenders fold. A much better choice, IMHO. https://t.co/hk7mPjzdl2

— chatham harrison is tending his garden (@chathamharrison) March 13, 2023

You can absolutely make the argument that the VC bailout was necessary to prevent contagion and save the economy, but the anger at the millionaire class receiving government support in a cocaine heartbeat while people struggle to pay rent is completely fair and reasonable.

— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) March 12, 2023

This TikTok is actually an incredible summary pic.twitter.com/4gL8SmUCRu

— Elai (@elaifresh) March 11, 2023

we’re tough on the wrong kind of crime. every penny we spend on petty larceny should be spent perp-walking Silicon Valley dorks and Wall Street vampires and people who commit wage theft

— knife-wielding hemophiliac (@NickTagliaferro) March 12, 2023

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: «On The Road - Albatrossity - Flyover Country Winter On The Road – Albatrossity – Flyover Country Winter
Next Post: The Real ‘Liberty’ Agenda »

Reader Interactions

  • Commenters
  • Filtered
  • Settings

Commenters

No commenters available.

  • Amir Khalid
  • Anne Laurie
  • Another Scott
  • Anyway
  • azlib
  • Baud
  • Betty Cracker
  • Bill Arnold
  • bjacques
  • cain
  • Cameron
  • catothedog
  • Ceci n est pas mon nym
  • Chris T.
  • Citizen Alan
  • Danielx
  • David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
  • different-church-lady
  • Dorothy A. Winsor
  • eclare
  • ErikaF
  • evodevo
  • frosty
  • Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
  • gvg
  • jackson
  • Kay
  • Ken
  • kindness
  • Kosh III
  • Kristine
  • Lapassionara
  • lowtechcyclist
  • Manyakitty
  • Matt McIrvin
  • MattF
  • Nelle
  • New Deal democrat
  • NotMax
  • oatler
  • OverTwistWillie
  • phdesmond
  • Princess
  • prostratedragon
  • PST
  • Queen of Lurkers
  • Redshift
  • RevRick
  • rikyrah
  • Ruckus
  • Sanjeevs
  • satby
  • SFAW
  • Soprano2
  • stinger
  • StringOnAStick
  • Subsole
  • Sure Lurkalot
  • tobie
  • Tom Levenson
  • trnc
  • Van Buren
  • Victor Matheson
  • Wanderer
  • Wapiti
  • zhena gogolia

Filtered Commenters

No filtered commenters available.

    Settings




    Settings are saved immediately; press X to close the box.

    188Comments

    1. 1.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 7:11 am

      People calling this a bailout remind me of Republicans calling everything woke or CRT.  It’s lying in pursuit of an agenda.

      Reply
    2. 2.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 7:13 am

      Is this Obama’s Katrina Biden’s bailout?

      Reply
    3. 3.

      rikyrah

      March 13, 2023 at 7:16 am

      Good Morning, Everyone😊😊😊

      Reply
    4. 4.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 7:16 am

      @rikyrah:

      Good morning.

      Reply
    5. 5.

      jackson

      March 13, 2023 at 7:24 am

      The novel Vanity Fair not by Trollope. It was Thackeray.

      Reply
    6. 6.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 7:26 am

      Hugh Grant was brilliant in that interview.

      Reply
    7. 7.

      Anne Laurie

      March 13, 2023 at 7:28 am

      @jackson: Ooops — thanks!

      Reply
    8. 8.

      RevRick

      March 13, 2023 at 7:33 am

      Hating on banks has been an All-American sport since at least the 1830s, but it’s a lot like hating in-laws. Without them, you wouldn’t have your spouse/significant other.

      Banking is, by definition, risky business. In fact, the word risk was coined in the Middle Ages by those who engaged in early banking activities. To make money, banks have to lend money, which usually means that on any given day they only have about 10% of the depositors money on hand. The rest is out working as loans. A run on the bank is what happens when depositors get nervous about how the bank is managing that working capital.

      The history of the 19th century is littered with the casualties of systemic bank failures, which were called Panics back then. They occurred almost like clockwork every twenty years, and led to massive business failures and mass unemployment. We had near-death experiences with the Great Depression and Great Recession. I’m in favor of whatever the Treasury, Fed, and FDIC do to prevent another disaster.

      As for making banksters pay, how do you criminalize stupidity?

      Reply
    9. 9.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 7:38 am

      To be fair here, the “wildly risky” investment SVC was making were generally just long-term US bonds. As far as I can tell here, this isn’t a hookers and blow story here at all,

      Reply
    10. 10.

      David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch

      March 13, 2023 at 7:40 am

      Grant may have been thinking of the novel or the numerous English screen productions

      Reply
    11. 11.

      Betty Cracker

      March 13, 2023 at 7:40 am

      @RevRick: Clawing back assets that were looted as the institution crumbled might be a good start. Banking is inherently risky, but that shouldn’t inoculate irresponsible greed-heads from accountability for their actions. Hopefully the measures put into place the last time these assholes decided to juggle chainsaws will keep their stupidity from blighting the lives of millions who weren’t in on the grift.

      Reply
    12. 12.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 7:44 am

      @Victor Matheson:

      Yeah, this seems like a failure of risk management.  It’s interesting that the three bank failures this weekend were all associated with the tech sector.  That can’t be a coincidence.

      Reply
    13. 13.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 7:45 am

      @David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch:

      I see an adaptation was released in 2004 starring Reese Witherspoon, I may check that out.

      Reply
    14. 14.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 7:48 am

      @RevRick:

      In fact, the word risk was coined in the Middle Ages by those who engaged in early banking activities

       
      Interesting. I thought it came from the board game.

      Reply
    15. 15.

      Nelle

      March 13, 2023 at 7:48 am

      @eclare: The movie is good.  So is the actual book.

      Reply
    16. 16.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 7:49 am

      @Nelle:   Thanks!

      Reply
    17. 17.

      David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch

      March 13, 2023 at 7:54 am

      @Victor Matheson: Oh, is this because of the current inverted yield curve or because they using leverage in bonds and puts

      Reply
    18. 18.

      New Deal democrat

      March 13, 2023 at 8:00 am

       

      @Baud: “People calling this a bailout remind me of Republicans calling everything woke or CRT.  It’s lying in pursuit of an agenda.”

      It’s a bailout.

      Ok, about a quarter-step removed, but close enough. I’ll explain more once my morning coffee allows my brain cells to rack to one another.

      Reply
    19. 19.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:02 am

      @New Deal democrat:

      Great. Please let me know which company received taxpayer dollars in their bank account.

      ETA: the key word in your description is “removed.”

      Reply
    20. 20.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 8:05 am

      This bank thing is a topic I find quite interesting, probably because it involves money. 😀

      To understand what’s going on, we have to define some terms, e.g., “money”: it’s any medium of exchange, i.e., anything where I can give you some “money” and you believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that you can take this “money” to some third person and exchange it for, say, food or shelter or sex or whatever. It’s the belief—not the green paper, or funny-colours plasticky stuff they use in the UK with the Prime Minister Queen King pictured on it—that makes this all work. That belief is partly a matter of faith, but it works because you’ve seen it work, which is because it works, which is because they’ve seen it work, which is because it works. It’s all very circular.

      Now that we know that “money” is any medium of exchange, we can define “bank”. A bank is a place where you can drop off money and they’ll store it for a while and you can come back later and get it back. This would just be a plain old vault (and some extremely boring banks may actually just have one vault and a bunch of storage boxes), but a more practical and modern (since the 1500s if not earlier) invention is a bank that also lends money.

      Weirdly, the practice of lending money—creating a debt—is in turn what creates more money! People borrowing money, from these things we’ve now loosely defined as “banks”, is what creates new money. Many people think of the (US Dollar at least) Fed using the “printing press” to create money, and they can sort of do that, but in fact, almost all actual money creation happens because of lending.

      A “bank run” is really quite simple in the end: it happens when people think that a bank has lent foolishly, so they go to the bank to get their money back, all at once. Since some of the money has been lent out, it’s not all there. The bank runs out of money and that’s a bank run: a panic.

      As noted above, we used to have these things every decade or two. We fixed that in the 1930s by creating a “lender of last resort” and the system of deposit insurance: basically, if there’s a run on some bank, the lender-of-last-resort can ultimately take over the bank and give all the depositors back their cash by—here’s the sticky bit—printing new money if and as necessary.

      It’s this insurance that enables the “moral hazard” whereby bankers (or banksters) deliberately make foolish loans: “heads I win, tails you lose”: if the foolish risky loan works out, they garner the profits, and if not, well, the bank goes under but they get away scot-free. The fix for that is also pretty simple: regulate the crap out of them.

      Our current problem is, to a large extent, under-regulation.

      There is a ton of fine print here, there, and everywhere, but that’s the gist of it.

      Reply
    21. 21.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:09 am

      @Chris T.:

      It’s this insurance that enables the “moral hazard” whereby bankers (or banksters) deliberately make foolish loans

       
      This is wrong. Banks have been making foolish loans well before deposit insurance became a thing.

      Reply
    22. 22.

      David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch

      March 13, 2023 at 8:11 am

      Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop laundering money.

      Reply
    23. 23.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 8:11 am

      @Baud:

      Banks have been making foolish loans well before deposit insurance became a thing.

      Well, yes, but back then they got drawn and quartered, or similar, encouragingly often.

      Reply
    24. 24.

      SFAW

      March 13, 2023 at 8:14 am

      @Baud:

      Interesting. I thought it came from the board game.

      Sorry!

      Reply
    25. 25.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:14 am

      @Chris T.:

      That didn’t really have deterrent effect though.

      Reply
    26. 26.

      SFAW

      March 13, 2023 at 8:16 am

      @Baud:

      Well, it may have addressed the “repeat offender” problem.

      Reply
    27. 27.

      New Deal democrat

      March 13, 2023 at 8:20 am

      @Baud: “Please let me know which company received taxpayer dollars in their bank account.”

      Every company which takes advantage of the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is funded by a dedicated tax – on banks (but really customers of banks). But this money is the property of the US government and by definition taxpayer money.

      What is your next question?

       

      @Baud:

      Reply
    28. 28.

      Van Buren

      March 13, 2023 at 8:21 am

      Very sad to report that Fiona, my Lhasa Apso, passed away yesterday. She was a rescue and never really bonded with any human. She just allowed us to feed her and give her a warm place to sleep. 2 months shy of 15, so a good run.

      Reply
    29. 29.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:21 am

      @New Deal democrat:

      Really, the money shows up on their balance sheet even if insurance is never invoked because it prevented a bank run?

      Fascinating.

      Reply
    30. 30.

      oatler

      March 13, 2023 at 8:22 am

      @jackson:

      Vanity Fair had the instructional  chapter “How to Live on Nothing A Year”.

      Reply
    31. 31.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:22 am

      @Van Buren:

      I’m very sorry.

      Reply
    32. 32.

      zhena gogolia

      March 13, 2023 at 8:22 am

      @eclare: There’s a recent miniseries too, which is rather enjoyable. It spurred me to read the book again for the 1000th time.

      Of course, he may have been referring to the original use of the term in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (1678).

      Reply
    33. 33.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 8:22 am

      @Van Buren:   So sorry about Fiona.

      Reply
    34. 34.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 8:23 am

      U.S. authorities launched emergency measures to shore up confidence in the banking system

      Or, U.S. authorities followed the established statutory processes to transfer the assets and liabilities of an insolvent bank to a healthier one.

      Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

      Reply
    35. 35.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 8:24 am

      @zhena gogolia:   Thanks!

      I’ve never read the book, but I have heard of it, unlike the interviewer and whoever was feeding her questions.

      Reply
    36. 36.

      Dorothy A. Winsor

      March 13, 2023 at 8:25 am

      @Van Buren: I’m sorry. You did a kind thing for Fiona

      Reply
    37. 37.

      Amir Khalid

      March 13, 2023 at 8:25 am

      So I googled “nonfat tofutti rice dreamsicle”, a fictional dessert dreamed up by The X-Files‘ David Duchovny. And I found a recipe that may actually taste better than the air in Mulder’s mouth.

      Reply
    38. 38.

      Amir Khalid

      March 13, 2023 at 8:27 am

      @Van Buren:

      My condolences.

      Reply
    39. 39.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 8:32 am

      @David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch: My (limited) understanding is that they put a lot of money into fixed-rate Treasury bonds, but then interest rates went up, which lowered the value of these bonds since bonds with higher rates were now available. Ironically the risky thing was investing in these nominally low-risk/low-reward instruments.

      Reply
    40. 40.

      Another Scott

      March 13, 2023 at 8:33 am

      @Chris T.:

      Our current problem is, to a large extent, under-regulation.

      Indeed. Several, including DeLong at his Substack, point to the reduced capital requirements for giant (but not galactic-size) banks enabled by the 2018 changes as the direct enabler of SVB’s demise.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    41. 41.

      OverTwistWillie

      March 13, 2023 at 8:35 am

      @Baud:

      Tech is a mature sector masquerading like it is 1982. The hair plugs and nip and tucks are noticeable.

      I guess the investment industry needs roulette tables for the punters.

      Reply
    42. 42.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 8:35 am

      @New Deal democrat:

      I noticed that several folks on Twitter yesterday were calling this a “bailout with extra steps” or something or other and that the costs to banks would be passed on to all depositors through higher fees.

      However, a commenter, Fair Economist, explained it to me like this:

      First, banks are generally quite profitable. Some of the fees will come out of their profits.

      Second, to some extent it will be paid by depositors. BUT that will be based on amounts deposited, and will overwhelmingly fall on the extremely wealthy, and not the “rest of us”. Insofar as it does, it will be an (extremely small) wealth tax.

       

      Fees are based on amount deposited. Some have pointed out the fees should be progressive (larger deposits pay a higher percentage) because a larger account creates more risk. You can’t crash a bank by pulling out a thousand bucks. But Peter Thiel can (and just did), by pulling out a hundred million. So he should pay more. But he doesn’t, and I doubt that will change.

      Much of this will be borne by those with higher bank balances if I understand this right

      Reply
    43. 43.

      Van Buren

      March 13, 2023 at 8:36 am

      Thanks to all.

      Reply
    44. 44.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:36 am

      @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):

      the costs to banks would be passed on to all depositors through higher fees

       
      It’s ironic that this is the same argument conservatives make for not taxing corporations.

      Reply
    45. 45.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 8:38 am

      @Another Scott:

      Why weren’t those requirements put back starting in 2021? Did it require new legislation? Or was it as simple as the Treasury issuing new banking rules?

      Reply
    46. 46.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:39 am

      @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): New legislation needed.

      Reply
    47. 47.

      Kay

      March 13, 2023 at 8:41 am

      As Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation battles to contain the Dominion lawsuit scandal that has engulfed its top executives and stars, another crisis is building in the wings that has the potential to cause further turbulence for the media empire.
      Smartmatic USA Corporation’s lawsuit against Fox News has attracted only a fraction of the attention garnered by the legal action of Dominion Voting Systems. Yet both firms are suing Fox for defamation related to its coverage of Donald Trump’s stolen-election lie, and both pose a serious threat to Fox’s finances and reputation.
      In fact, on paper Smartmatic’s suit appears to be the more dangerous. It’s demanding damages of $2.7bn, compared with Dominion’s $1.6bn.

      Last week the New York state supreme court in Manhattan gave the green light for the case to proceed against Fox News, the Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, the former business anchor Lou Dobbs and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Smartmatic, a global election technology company headquartered in London, lodged its defamation suit in February 2021. “The Earth is round,” was the complaint’s striking opening sentence. “Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election … ”
      Smartmatic claims that more than 100 false statements were broadcast by Fox News hosts and guests. Smartmatic was falsely said to have been involved in 2020 election counts in six battleground states – in fact, it was present only at the count in Los Angeles county.

      Reply
    48. 48.

      prostratedragon

      March 13, 2023 at 8:41 am

      @Victor Matheson:  They exposed their balance sheet to interest rate risk, because of the long maturities on the bonds and the recent period of unusually low rates, and not capital risk I think you’d call it.

      Reply
    49. 49.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 8:41 am

      @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): The key thing is that corporate depositors are not going to have to take any immediate haircut and can access all their money starting today, which reduces the chaos this could have created across the tech industry (companies shutting down, laying people off or not being able to make payroll just because their funds are frozen or have evaporated into the aether).

      There’s been a lot of talk about why a company would put cash way above the FDIC limit into this bank, but my impression is that many of them were essentially ordered to do so by their VC investors, because SVB was an organization they trusted. And more generally I don’t think it’s a widespread practice for a corporation to spread its cash holdings out across a zillion accounts so they can be fully FDIC-insured; it would be very cumbersome.

      Reply
    50. 50.

      Soprano2

      March 13, 2023 at 8:43 am

      OMG that TikTok, it was so funny (and accurate) I watched it twice. Thanks for the laugh.

      Reply
    51. 51.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:43 am

      @Kay: 👍

      Reply
    52. 52.

      Anne Laurie

      March 13, 2023 at 8:44 am

      @zhena gogolia: Of course, he may have been referring to the original use of the term in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

      Apparently (per the definition I’ve linked) the phrase ‘vanity fair’ has passed into general usage in the UK.

      (Also ‘liberty hall‘, from what I’ve read.)

      Never read Pilgrim’s Progress myself, but I knew about its Vanity Fair from reading Little Women!

      Reply
    53. 53.

      Princess

      March 13, 2023 at 8:47 am

      I dont have a huge problem with what the government is doing with svb.

      But if it’s true that the CFO cashed out millions of dollars a few days before, if that isn’t a crime it should be.

      Reply
    54. 54.

      prostratedragon

      March 13, 2023 at 8:49 am

      @Van Buren:  My condolences, I’m sure she’ll be missed.

      Reply
    55. 55.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 8:51 am

      @Matt McIrvin:

      Good points. I think Berkshire Hathaway puts a lot of cash into T-Bills. Do corporations put cash into money market mutual funds? Those are also fairly liquid and safe

      Reply
    56. 56.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 8:51 am

      Regarding what’s happening at Silicon Valley Bank, last week someone recommended this explainer by Matt Levine. I found it helpful.

      One thing that struck me is that they set themselves up as banking for startups, and it got to the point that the venture capitalists* funding startups insisted the companies use SVB. So they had a weird customer base that wanted to deposit lots of money into the bank, but didn’t want or need to borrow from the bank, and for a bank it’s kind of necessary to have both. That’s why they ended up with over half their assets in long-term fixed-rate securities — they had nothing better to do with their funds.

      * Quote: “Also, I am sorry to be rude, but there is another reason that it is maybe not great to be the Bank of Startups, which is that nobody on Earth is more of a herd animal than Silicon Valley venture capitalists.”

      Reply
    57. 57.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 8:52 am

      @Baud:

      Gotcha, thanks

      Reply
    58. 58.

      lowtechcyclist

      March 13, 2023 at 8:52 am

      @New Deal democrat:

      @Baud: “People calling this a bailout remind me of Republicans calling everything woke or CRT.  It’s lying in pursuit of an agenda.”

      It’s a bailout.

      Here’s what the FDIC says it does in situations like this:

      COVERAGE LIMITS
      The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

      The FDIC provides separate coverage for deposits held in different account ownership categories. Depositors may qualify for coverage over $250,000 if they have funds in different ownership categories and all FDIC requirements are met.

      All deposits that an accountholder has in the same ownership category at the same bank are added together and insured up to the standard insurance amount.

      WHEN A BANK FAILS

      A bank failure is the closing of a bank by a federal or state banking regulatory agency, generally resulting from a bank’s inability to meet its obligations to depositors and others. In the unlikely event of a bank failure, the FDIC acts quickly to ensure depositors get prompt access to their insured deposits.

      FDIC deposit insurance covers the balance of each depositor’s account, dollar-for-dollar, up to the insurance limit, including principal and any accrued interest through the date of the insured bank’s closing.

      The FDIC acts in two capacities following a bank failure:

      1. As the “Insurer” of the bank’s deposits, the FDIC pays deposit insurance to the depositors up to the insurance limit.

      2. As the “Receiver” of the failed bank, the FDIC assumes the task of collecting and selling the assets of the failed bank and settling its debts, including claims for deposits in excess of the insured limit.

      I’m good with the depositors being bailed out to the tune of up to $250K each, because that’s what the FDIC says it will do. And if the FDIC takes over the bank, and it turns out that after selling the bank’s assets and paying its debts, there’s some money left over to partially reimburse depositors for their excess over $250K, then that’s fine too.

      And as long as the persons with ownership interests in the bank are not bailed out, and not a nickel of any compensation owed to bank execs is paid, then that’s the important thing. They’re the ones who fucked up, they’re the ones who should get to find out.

      Reply
    59. 59.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 8:53 am

      @New Deal democrat: ​
       

      Every company which takes advantage of the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is funded by a dedicated tax – on banks (but really customers of banks). But this money is the property of the US government and by definition taxpayer money.

      I don’t know whether it’s really “taxpayer money” just because it’s held by the fed when it has collected for this specific purpose, but it’s preposterous to think it’s just another pile of money sitting in the US Treasury that you can tell your rep what you want it spent on. The money collected from the banks and held by the FDIC has a specific use, which is deposit insurance. It can’t be used to expand SNAP or build roads.

      Reply
    60. 60.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:56 am

      @lowtechcyclist:

      I’m good with the depositors being bailed out to the tune of up to $250K

      That’s covered by the insurance, so it’s not a bail out.  Your car insurance doesn’t bail you out when you make a claim.

      And if the FDIC takes over the bank, and it turns out that after selling the bank’s assets and paying its debts, there’s some money left over to partially reimburse depositors for their excess over $250K, then that’s fine too.

      In this case, I believe the banks have more assets than liabilities.  Their problem was with cash flow and liquidity in light of reserve requirements.

       

      And as long as the persons with ownership interests in the bank are not bailed out, and not a nickel of any compensation owed to bank execs is paid, then that’s the important thing.

      I believe that’s the case with ownership interests.  They are wiped out.  I’m not sure about what’s going on with compensation, and what the Feds can do there legally.

      Reply
    61. 61.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 8:57 am

      @lowtechcyclist: I’m good with the depositors being bailed out to the tune of up to $250K each, because that’s what the FDIC says it will do.

      Me, too, except it’s not a bailout any more than an insurance company is “bailing you out” if your house burns down. You pay a premium (or fee), you get the protection.

      ETA: Baud beat me to it, as usual.

      Reply
    62. 62.

      Anyway

      March 13, 2023 at 8:57 am

      I wondered why Hugh Grant was even there – actors  usually attend only because of contractual obligations to plug their projects.

       

      He is a good interviewee – but sometimes you gotta play the game, bro…

      Reply
    63. 63.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 8:57 am

      @lowtechcyclist: Right now, I’m pretty sure they’re saying that depositors will be bailed out for 100% of their deposits, not just the fraction under the insurance limit. Funds are also accessible starting today

      And that this is not coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.

      Reply
    64. 64.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 8:58 am

      @Ken: I’m curious about the bank’s ratio of insured to uninsured deposits.  Also, the extent to which its deposits were concentrated among very few players.  Those seem to be risk factors that should have been taken into account.

      Reply
    65. 65.

      Dorothy A. Winsor

      March 13, 2023 at 9:00 am

      Mr DAW just came in here and said a UK bank bought SVC for one pound.

      Reply
    66. 66.

      Betty Cracker

      March 13, 2023 at 9:00 am

      It’s that time of year again: Limpkins are pairing up, a process that involves dramatic flying chases and nonstop screeching on the riverbank and in trees 24/7. They’re as loud as peacocks!

      The Yearling author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, who lived not far from here, included a recipe for roast Limpkin in her cookbook.

      Reply
    67. 67.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 9:01 am

      @Baud:

      And as long as the persons with ownership interests in the bank are not bailed out, and not a nickel of any compensation owed to bank execs is paid, then that’s the important thing.

      ….

      I believe that’s the case with ownership interests.  They are wiped out.  I’m not sure about what’s going on with compensation, and what the Feds can do there legally.

      And, of course, this is the difference between this federal action and the 2008 bailout, in which owners and shareholders received money, not just the customers.

      Reply
    68. 68.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:02 am

      @Dorothy A. Winsor: I believe that was only SVC’s UK assets, not the whole bank.

      Reply
    69. 69.

      Citizen Alan

      March 13, 2023 at 9:03 am

      @Matt McIrvin: My mind simply reels at the thought of keeping money in any bank beyond the amount that is FDIC secured. I just can’t fathom it. It’s like going without health insurance simply because you’re “young” or buying a house in a flood plain.

      Reply
    70. 70.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 9:03 am

      @Dorothy A. Winsor: Mr DAW just came in here and said a UK bank bought SVC for one pound.

      What are they getting for that, a bush from the parking lot? The feds took control and are planning to liquidate to recover what they can, right?

      Reply
    71. 71.

      Dorothy A. Winsor

      March 13, 2023 at 9:05 am

      @Baud: That makes more sense

      @trnc: Baud says they’re getting the UK assets

      Reply
    72. 72.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 9:05 am

      @Baud: Those seem to be risk factors that should have been taken into account.

      Do you mean by the banking regulators?  That is, treat these numbers as warning flags, and intervene sooner?  I have no idea what options they’d have for such intervention.

      If you mean by investors in the bank — due diligence is so twentieth century.

      Reply
    73. 73.

      MattF

      March 13, 2023 at 9:06 am

      And bankers aren’t geniuses. There’s an old saying among con artists— “If you can’t fool a banker, you should find another line of work.” Consider, e.g., that TFG was kept afloat by many different bankers from many different countries, lending him money for many years.

      Reply
    74. 74.

      tobie

      March 13, 2023 at 9:07 am

      @Matt McIrvin: My understanding is similar. The bank lent money at a low rate but then Jerome Powell jacked up interest rates, and the bank found itself with liabilities because the borrowing rates it was facing were higher than the rates of the loans it had previously made.

      As someone who refinanced a mortgage when interest rates were at 2.25%, I kind of get that.

      Reply
    75. 75.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:08 am

      @Dorothy A. Winsor: A UK bank offered to buy the UK segment of SVB for £1. I don’t think they’ve been taken up on this offer…

      Reply
    76. 76.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:09 am

      @Ken: Both the regulators and the bank’s internal compliance people.  If the bank is publicly traded, I believe the bank needs to disclose the risk.  Curious to learn what SVB disclosed here.

      Reply
    77. 77.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 9:10 am

      @Citizen Alan: Suppose you’re a corporation that needs $10 million in liquid cash just to manage your day-to-day operations. Do you keep shuffling that around between 40 different banks just to keep it insured?

      FDIC insurance was designed to protect individuals–the little people. But the way things shake out, there’s a lot of risk to individuals inherent in these corporate problems. Something needs to change but it needs to make sense.

      Reply
    78. 78.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:11 am

      @tobie: Yes, and there are a ton of additional complications. For instance, SVB insisted that if a client used SVB, they had to put everything into SVB. The emergency analysis done over the weekend, however, suggests that after wiping out shareholders, SVB’s assets are probably worth $1.30 per $1, so whoever buys them and fixes up the mess should make out pretty nicely, if they can do it in a reasonable time frame.

      Reply
    79. 79.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 9:11 am

      @Ken:

      I saw that Levine explainer too and I thought it was easy to understand

      Reply
    80. 80.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 9:12 am

      @Citizen Alan: My mind simply reels at the thought of keeping money in any bank beyond the amount that is FDIC secured.

      It’s per account per insured bank, so you should be spreading your millions around.

      Reply
    81. 81.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:12 am

      @Matt McIrvin:

      Suppose you’re a corporation that needs $10 million in liquid cash just to manage your day-to-day operations. Do you keep shuffling that around between 40 different banks just to keep it insured?

      There are companies that do this for other companies (for a fee of course). It gets a lot more difficult if it’s $10B rather than $10 million though.

      Reply
    82. 82.

      Princess

      March 13, 2023 at 9:14 am

      @Dorothy A. Winsor: Looks like they only bought the UK arm of SVB.

      ETA: others got here before me.

      Reply
    83. 83.

      NotMax

      March 13, 2023 at 9:15 am

      Many moons ago when was existing on extremely modest means, dumped what paltry sums I had in a local bank which did not belong to FDIC. Because they paid interest on accounts (both checking and savings) up to 2½ times what FDIC-member banks at that period did. No fly by night operation, it pre-dated the Depression and had a stellar rep in the geographic area surrounding their single outlet.
      ;)

      Reply
    84. 84.

      PST

      March 13, 2023 at 9:15 am

      I found Krugman’s analysis pretty persuasive. He says that the people behind SVB were part of a clubby little venture capital/startup/crypto world that VC investors encouraged the startups they were backing to use because it was their kind of bank. He compares it to a kind of affinity fraud a la Madoff, not because it was an actual Ponzi scheme, but because it attracted depositors who had confidence that they were dealing with the right sort of guys. These guys then failed because they weren’t actually very good bankers and held too many of their assets in long-term treasury securities that have zero default risk but substantial interest rate risk. Rates went up, present value went down, and the actual smart guys realized that SVB was no longer liquid enough to cash everyone out.

      Reply
    85. 85.

      tobie

      March 13, 2023 at 9:17 am

      A 30% ROI would be a big chunk of change.

      I need to read up on this story…both about what SVB did and what the potential ripple effects were. The whole story is complicated and the outrage about bailouts doesn’t scratch the surface.

      Reply
    86. 86.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 9:17 am

      @Matt McIrvin: Suppose you’re a corporation that needs $10 million in liquid cash just to manage your day-to-day operations. Do you keep shuffling that around between 40 different banks just to keep it insured?

      Banks are for long term holding, so your day to day ops are probably mostly funded by your revenue stream, right? But there are apparently accounting firms who specialize in keeping your vast wealth spread around to multiple banks according to something I read yesterday.

      Reply
    87. 87.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:17 am

      Too late to edit, but: CNN article suggests that the HSBC-buys-UK-segment-of-SVB offer did get taken. Perhaps the Bank of England’s enforcers sent in the goons. 😀

      Reply
    88. 88.

      RevRick

      March 13, 2023 at 9:19 am

      @Baud: Exactly. But the thing about foolish loans is that they seemed quite wise until the very moment they weren’t.

      I have fond memories of debates we had on Moneybox in Slate magazine back in the mid 2000s about when the housing bubble would burst. By 2006, it was obvious to everyone paying attention that the market was entering the Wile Coyote running off a cliff phase with their NInja (no income, no job/assets) loans and balloon payment mortgages that could only be made to work where housing prices constantly rose. Would Bear Stearns do it? How about the Amaranth fund? Then Lehman brothers happened and our economy went into free fall.
      Two things about that experience:

      First, the speculative bubble was driven by both greed and fear, and the latter was as important as the former. Bank executives saw what us rank amateurs saw, but what executive would dare say, “Let’s let everyone else make profits off this insanity, while our stockholders demand our heads, because of the lousy returns we’re getting?”

      Second, we often misremember 2008 as a bank bailout, but it wasn’t. Paulson demanded that the banks take loans from the Treasury in exchange for warrants, but the major banks didn’t want them! Those loans were really meant as a display of government force that the Treasury would open a firehouse of capital. What the vast majority of TARP funds went to was AIG, the insurance giant that insured these loans, and the quasi public/private entities known as Ginny Mae and Fanny Mae. Obama later used a huge chunk to bailout the auto industry.

      Reply
    89. 89.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 9:20 am

      @Chris T.:

      Must’ve shown HSBC their stiff upper lips

      Reply
    90. 90.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:20 am

      @trnc:

      Banks are for long term holding, so your day to day ops are probably mostly funded by your revenue stream, right? But there are apparently accounting firms who specialize in keeping your vast wealth spread around to multiple banks according to something I read yesterday.

      Yes, the details get hairy (and hazy, known only to the various Smooth Operators) but it’s basically the money market system. It froze up temporarily right after the Lehman collapse, and that scared the crap out of everyone who knows this stuff.

      Reply
    91. 91.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 9:23 am

      @NotMax: There also used to be a separate FSLIC that just insured savings-and-loan companies, but it got rolled into the FDIC following the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis.

      (That was initially sparked by rises in interest rates, much like this SVB situation, except that it was rising rates on fixed-rate mortgage loans rather than rising bond rates. But then the S&Ls started doing risky speculative things to fill the gap.)

      Reply
    92. 92.

      trnc

      March 13, 2023 at 9:24 am

      @Chris T.: ​
        I remain blissfully ignorant. It’s my superpower.

      Reply
    93. 93.

      satby

      March 13, 2023 at 9:25 am

      @PST: This is the BEST PART OF Krugman’s thread:

      The good news is that the FDIC has seized the bank, so the stockholders have been cleaned out. Unfortunately, there seems likely to be enough systemic spillover that the Feds will probably have to backstop some although maybe not all the uninsured deposits

      Reply
    94. 94.

      frosty

      March 13, 2023 at 9:27 am

      @SFAW: that was terrible!

      Reply
    95. 95.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 9:28 am

      @RevRick: Here in the Northeast, the housing bubble burst in 2006. I remember it well because we had a new baby and were trying to move through all this mishegas.

      It took a little while for that to percolate to the rest of the country. But you could see the developing problem pretty easily if you had your eyes open.

      Reply
    96. 96.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:28 am

      @frosty: That’s Life.

      Reply
    97. 97.

      Another Scott

      March 13, 2023 at 9:32 am

      @Matt McIrvin: My recollection is that the politically-connected banksters saw all the money sitting in S&Ls making so little on the vig and saw a huge opportunity to leverage them and make bazillions.  So they bought them up, lobbied for more freedom to do risky loans, did so, and then the whole scheme imploded when interest rates started rising rapidly.

      Wikipedia’s article has the timeline and cause-and-effect kinda mixed up together, but Keating and Milken and all the rest were active in the early 1980s.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    98. 98.

      Lapassionara

      March 13, 2023 at 9:33 am

      @Citizen Alan: It is my understanding that some businesses were required to use the bank, and they had funds in the bank to meet payroll obligations and the like. I can imagine a tech company’s payroll being more than $250,000

      ETA I also read that the Bank’s execs were paid a regularly-scheduled bonus just before the difficulties started. I assume those will be clawed back.

      Reply
    99. 99.

      New Deal democrat

      March 13, 2023 at 9:33 am

      Here is a somewhat truncated version of what i have written elsewhere.

      Because SVB concededly only had a liquidity issue and not a solvency issue, backstopping the depositors did not bail them out; it merely gave them access to all of their money now rather than later.

      But on the other hand, the law is, bank depositors have FDIC insurance up to $250,000. Everyone knew this going in. Had this been The Bank of Depositors With No Political Clout, you can bet that the limit would have been enforced, and depositors would have to wait for their money. An exception was made because the depositors at SVB had enough political clout that they could have exacted major damage on the financial system. As the old saying goes (accounting for inflation), “If you owe the bank $1 million, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100 million, you own the bank.”

      In short, the depositors at SVB had the risk that by law they assumed when they put their money in the bank in excess of $250k, removed. They got access to their money this morning, rather than in a few days or weeks. To that extent they received a bailout.

      Beyond the issue of whether the rescue plan announced Sunday is or is not a “bailout“ of SVB (and Signature Bank of NY, and probably other banks in the near future), there is a much more important problem.

      That problem is, the $250,000 FDIC limit on deposit insurance has effectively been removed, in total. That’s because the actions taken Sunday by regulators essentially assure that all future depositors for the duration of the plan will receive similar treatment.

      The precedent has been set. If Wall Street can put a gun to the head of the US financial system due to depositors’ foolish acts, and has successfully just done so, then every banker and large customer knows that the same thing will happen in the future.

      And the next bank that does under may indeed be insolvent, not just illiquid.

      In other words, we now have a banking system vulnerable to systemic risk where certain bankers and large clients know they can take reckless risks, but the FDIC can be coerced into making their customers whole if the risks blow up, well beyond the $250,000 official limits of FDIC insurance.

      One way or another, if the $250,000 FDIC limit has gone away – and effectively it has – the risk to taxpayers to have to bail out those bank depositors with uninsured deposits, must be minimized. Until then, we’re in trouble.

      If you want to read the long(er)-form version of the above, you can do so here:
      https://bonddad.blogspot.com/2023/03/thoughts-on-silicon-valley-bank-why.html

      Reply
    100. 100.

      Another Scott

      March 13, 2023 at 9:37 am

      @New Deal democrat: OTOH, DeLong and Baker and others argue that if all deposits are insured for everyone, then the risk of a bank run vanishes.  That would seem to be a big advantage, wouldn’t it?

      Of course, the devil’s in the details (like someone with $500M in deposits at a bank should have to pay much, much more for deposit insurance than someone with $500 at the bank – withdrawing $500 won’t kill a bank, but withdrawing $500M will…).

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    101. 101.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:38 am

      @New Deal democrat: Thanks for that.  I still disagree with being imprecise about what a “bailout” is, but I agree with the rest, particularly about having to re-think the $250K limit and how do deal with corporate depositors with large deposits.

      Reply
    102. 102.

      different-church-lady

      March 13, 2023 at 9:41 am

      @jackson: I thought it was about a Trollope. CAN I GET A BOOM SWISH?

      Reply
    103. 103.

      Dorothy A. Winsor

      March 13, 2023 at 9:42 am

      @Another Scott: The Big Short is a good movie about 2008

      Reply
    104. 104.

      frosty

      March 13, 2023 at 9:43 am

      @Baud: I knew someone would say that. I almost did but I figured I’d be third or fourth!

      Reply
    105. 105.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 9:43 am

      @Another Scott: the whole scheme imploded when interest rates started rising rapidly

      “When the tide goes out you learn who’s been swimming naked.”  — Warren Buffett

      I wonder what would happen if every seven years the Fed jacked interest rates to 5% for six months, just to shake out the dubious schemes. I vaguely recall a science-fiction story along those lines, where the world government deliberately put people with various psychiatric conditions in charge. The financial leader was always a manic-depressive, since his ups and downs drove the business cycle predictably.

      Reply
    106. 106.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:44 am

      The point here is that if you want to keep millions of dollars in insured deposits, it’s entirely possible to do, but might come with some liquidity costs and (unavoidably) lower investment returns. This is the sort of thing that any corporate treasury professional ought to know about, which raises the question of why so many businesses apparently had large, uninsured deposits at SVB.

      I do not know if SVB participated in CDARS (they aren’t listed on the IntraFi network, but I don’t know if that’s a post-receivership change or not), but it’s been drawn to my attention that SVB did in fact offer reciprocal deposit services. SVB’s 12/31/22 call report (p.33) lists $469 million in reciprocal deposits. That’s a small fraction of the uninsured deposit balances. Why SVB wasn’t pushing this offering more, or why clients weren’t taking it isn’t clear. But the mere possibility of a reciprocal deposit brokerage service makes the businesses that got trapped at SVB look a bit less sympathetic.

      Reply
    107. 107.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 9:47 am

      @tobie:

      The bank lent money at a low rate but then Jerome Powell jacked up interest rates, and the bank found itself with liabilities because the borrowing rates it was facing were higher than the rates of the loans it had previously made.

      I don’t think they even had to do much borrowing. It was more that because rates went up, the market value of the lower-rate bonds they held went down, to the point that they started publicly worrying about the ability of their current holdings to cover withdrawals from depositors, and that caused a bank run.

      The root cause was partly that they were operating too close to the edge in the first place–their fractional reserve was lower than it should have been, giving them less cushion to work with.

      Reply
    108. 108.

      Redshift

      March 13, 2023 at 9:49 am

      @Anyway:

      I wondered why Hugh Grant was even there – actors usually attend only because of contractual obligations to plug their projects.

      He was a presenter, along with Andie McDowell, and made a rather amusing joke at his own expense (which was just risque enough that I suspect it was an ad lib.)

      Reply
    109. 109.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 9:51 am

      @New Deal democrat:

      That problem is, the $250,000 FDIC limit on deposit insurance has effectively been removed, in total.

      They’ll pinky-swear, like the Supremely Political Court did, that this one decision is a special case that sets no precedent.

      Practically speaking, though, it’s time for more / better regulation.

      Reply
    110. 110.

      different-church-lady

      March 13, 2023 at 9:52 am

      I’m just glad we’re now passing around disinformation about banking instead of a deadly virus.​

      Reply
    111. 111.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 9:55 am

      @different-church-lady: Haha. Perfect.

      Reply
    112. 112.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 9:56 am

      @Redshift:   That joke was hilarious!  As for why he was there, he presented with Andie McDowell, so maybe some anniversary of Four Weddings and a Funeral is coming up.

      ETA>  Thirty year anniversary next year.

      Reply
    113. 113.

      different-church-lady

      March 13, 2023 at 9:57 am

      @eclare: “Four Funerals and Still Dead”

      Reply
    114. 114.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 9:58 am

      @different-church-lady:   Hahaha….

      Reply
    115. 115.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 9:58 am

      @Ken:

      I wonder what would happen if every seven years the Fed jacked interest rates to 5% for six months, just to shake out the dubious schemes.

      If it’s predictable, institutions and practices will just evolve such that you move some money around and keep your head down for those six months and keep doing what you’re doing after.

      Reply
    116. 116.

      Danielx

      March 13, 2023 at 9:58 am

      @Victor Matheson:

      Aw, c’mon! A bank failure without hookers and blow? What fun is that?

      Reply
    117. 117.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 10:01 am

      @different-church-lady: One thing I do remember about the 2008 crisis is that it gave a lot of people who were really far-right cranks (goldbugs, austerity maniacs, antisemites who go on about the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy) a sudden burst of left-wing cred because they were attacking the banksters, leading to associations that bit us in the butt later.

      Reply
    118. 118.

      lowtechcyclist

      March 13, 2023 at 10:03 am

      @Lapassionara:

      It is my understanding that some businesses were required to use the bank

      By whom?

      [curses the existence of the passive voice]

      Maybe those businesses should sue whoever forced them to do that.  Or maybe they should sue themselves for signing a contract in the first place with people who’d put conditions like that on the deal.

      At some point, people have to be responsible for their own bad decisions, even if they looked like good ones at the time.

      Reply
    119. 119.

      different-church-lady

      March 13, 2023 at 10:05 am

      @Matt McIrvin: ​
        It’s really unfortunate how often bits of the left fall into that trap. (See Greenwald, Taibbi, et al.)

      Reply
    120. 120.

      RevRick

      March 13, 2023 at 10:06 am

      @PST: What happened at SVB is symptomatic of a larger global problem, and that is a credit glut. We have more money than we know what to do with. And the source of that problem is us – the good old U S of A!
      Prior to the 70s we were the world’s largest creditor nation, but then oil, automotive and home electronics imports turned our balance sheet to the red. Now, what ordinarily happens is a country that runs a trade deficit has to raise interest rates to make imports more expensive and their exports more desirable to halt the capital outflow. The United States was in a weird place economically during the 70s. The oil shocks of 73 and 79 triggered inflation and stagnation, which placed enormous pressure on our banks and led to a series of credit crunches. And thus began the outsourcing of jobs. Carter’s appointment of Paul Volker tamed inflation, but it failed to halt our trade deficit. And here’s when things get really weird. The rest of the world fell in love with T-bills, basically paying us to hold their money. We spend hundreds of billions more each month on imports than on exports, which ought to drag us down and cause the other nations to demand stuff in return, but instead they’re saying, “ No, we’re good. Carry on.” Hence a worldwide credit glut of too much money chasing after too few worthwhile investment opportunities.

      Reply
    121. 121.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 10:07 am

      @Matt McIrvin: Hmm, good point.  OK, tie it to a dice roll; if 2d6 comes up boxcars, bump up by 4 percentage points. Though for all I can tell, that’s already Fed procedure.

      Reply
    122. 122.

      lowtechcyclist

      March 13, 2023 at 10:08 am

      @Baud:

      I agree with the rest, particularly about having to re-think the $250K limit and how do deal with corporate depositors with large deposits.

      Those people should just go to somewhere like Morgan Stanley that will set up an investment account for them in a way that they’ve got bonds maturing at regular, frequent intervals so that they’ll have money when they need it.

      Sure, they’ll charge a fee for managing your money, but it’ll still be there and be working for you.

      Reply
    123. 123.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:09 am

      @Betty Cracker: Here’s the problem – there weren’t really any irresponsible greed-heads here. They weren’t betting on Crypto. They were investing in 30-year Treasury bonds paying 2% interest.

      Reply
    124. 124.

      Matt McIrvin

      March 13, 2023 at 10:10 am

      @Victor Matheson: Though that in itself was a bet that interest rates would remain low, and since they catered to startups, a lot of their business depended on interest rates remaining low too.

      Reply
    125. 125.

      Dorothy A. Winsor

      March 13, 2023 at 10:10 am

      Good decision, Donald.

      NBC News: Trump will *not sit for a meeting with the Manhattan grand jury investigating the hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels.

      Reply
    126. 126.

      Ken

      March 13, 2023 at 10:10 am

      @RevRick: SVB shows another aspect of that. With lots of customer deposits, where does the “bank for startups” invest the money? Not with startups! They have all the money they need from the venture capitalists. So the bank shoves the cash into US treasuries.

      Reply
    127. 127.

      Sanjeevs

      March 13, 2023 at 10:11 am

      The top job at the National Institutes of Health, a prestigious role that has attracted a Nobel Prize winner and other leading scientists, is going unfilled as candidates back out.
      At least two potential choices for the job have walked away, and the White House has struggled finding qualified candidates willing to fill a job that would probably force them to take a substantial pay cut and face popular attacks on scientists, people familiar with the search said.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/nih-top-job-still-empty-as-candidates-back-out-ffecd0cd?mod=hp_lead_pos4

      Thanks Fox News.

      Reply
    128. 128.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:15 am

      @Matt McIrvin: Just to be clear, investing in 30-year US Treasuries at 2% interest is typically not considered a “dubious scheme.”

      Reply
    129. 129.

      Chris T.

      March 13, 2023 at 10:15 am

      @Sanjeevs:

      [It seems to be hard to] find… qualified candidates willing to fill a job that would probably force them to take a substantial pay cut and face popular attacks on scientists

      Hoocoodanode?

      (Molly Ivans, we miss you!)

      Reply
    130. 130.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:16 am

      @Ken: Wait, so you are mad at SBV for not engaging in risky loans to tech startups with depositors’ money and instead putting the money in safe Treasuries?

      Reply
    131. 131.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 10:17 am

      @Matt McIrvin:

      Also, depending on where interest rates are at prior to the increase and other factors, a recession could be triggered unnecessarily

      Reply
    132. 132.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 10:19 am

      @Victor Matheson:

      “Safe Treasuries” is misleading.  They’re “safe” in that they will always pay (subject to House Republicans) but not “safe” when it comes to holding their value.  Poor risk management by the bank.

      Reply
    133. 133.

      New Deal democrat

      March 13, 2023 at 10:24 am

      @Another Scott: “DeLong and Baker and others argue that if all deposits are insured for everyone, then the risk of a bank run vanishes.  That would seem to be a big advantage, wouldn’t it?”

      Yes, that is one way of dealing with the issue. Won’t happen with GOP control of the House, but worth putting on the table as one long term solution.

      Reply
    134. 134.

      SFAW

      March 13, 2023 at 10:28 am

      @Baud: ​
       
      For this place that’s about par, cheesy comments like that.

      Reply
    135. 135.

      bjacques

      March 13, 2023 at 10:28 am

      I’m guessing this time around Taibbi will be speaking up *for* the Vampire Squid…

      Reply
    136. 136.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:29 am

      @Lapassionara: All employees were paid their promised bonuses just before things went south. These were all contractual payments made for work done in 2022. It’s not obvious why workers wouldn’t have a claim for work that they have done.

      Reply
    137. 137.

      Cameron

      March 13, 2023 at 10:30 am

      What a terribly woke attack on America’s Governor:

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-desantis-posed-with-a-handmade-snowflake-it-had-the-word-fascist-written-all-over-it/ar-AA18ybbi?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=a844af9aec474546b9b3a91a259e8b9c&ei=25

      Reply
    138. 138.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 10:33 am

      @SFAW: You are infringing on NotMax’s monopoly over puns.

      Reply
    139. 139.

      Victor Matheson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:34 am

      @Baud: Agreed, there was obviously a interest-rate risk issue that was not managed properly (and one that literally every single bank in the country is currently facing, hopefully to a much lower extent.)

      But, I think it is super important for people to understand that this a completely different beast than something like FTX or even the entire 2018 financial meltdown. This was basically a conservative bank engaging in basically conservative investments that went wrong for them when the Fed raised rates. Obviously the bank needed to better plan for this sort of thing, but this isn’t at all the evil banker story.

      Reply
    140. 140.

      phdesmond

      March 13, 2023 at 10:34 am

      @RevRick:

      from etymonline.com :

      risk (n.)

      1660s, risque, “hazard, danger, peril, exposure to mischance or harm,” from French risque (16c.), from Italian risco, riscio (modern rischio), from riscare “run into danger,” a word of uncertain origin.

      The Englished spelling is recorded by 1728. Spanish riesgo and German Risiko are Italian loan-words. The commercial sense of “hazard of the loss of a ship, goods, or other properties” is by 1719; hence the extension to “chance taken in an economic enterprise.”

      Paired with run (v.) from 1660s. Risk aversion is recorded from 1942; risk factor from 1906; risk management from 1963; risk-taker from 1892.

      Reply
    141. 141.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 10:36 am

      @Victor Matheson: I think you meant 2008.

      Currently, it appears that some of the depositors may have been more evil than the bank.

      Reply
    142. 142.

      lowtechcyclist

      March 13, 2023 at 10:37 am

      @Victor Matheson:

      Just to be clear, investing in 30-year US Treasuries at 2% interest is typically not considered a “dubious scheme.”

      But putting all your eggs in one basket is not wise investing, no matter what the basket is.  Because doing that was in fact a bet that interest rates would stay low, which is a weird bet to take when the Fed has spent the past year at least talking about raising them.

      this isn’t at all the evil banker story.

      OK then, it’s the oblivious banker story.

      Reply
    143. 143.

      Tom Levenson

      March 13, 2023 at 10:38 am

      @Betty Cracker: “Roast Limpkin” makes me think of DeSantis in his white waterproof boots.

      Reply
    144. 144.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 10:41 am

      @Victor Matheson:   For income tax purposes bonuses must be paid within two and one half months of year end to be deductible on the prior year tax return, or by March 15.  So the timing looks hinky, but for tax purposes it’s normal.

      Reply
    145. 145.

      Cameron

      March 13, 2023 at 10:41 am

      @Betty Cracker: Roast Limpkin sounds like a good comic book name for the late and unlamented Rush Limbaugh.

      Reply
    146. 146.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 10:42 am

      @Tom Levenson:   Hahaha…you forgot sassy.  White waterproof sassy boots!

      Reply
    147. 147.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 10:43 am

      @Cameron:

      Ha!

      Reply
    148. 148.

      Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

      March 13, 2023 at 10:45 am

      @Baud:

      Peter Thiel? I don’t like the guy, but I read that he and his Founder’s Funds may have pulled their money out of SVB because of the earlier failure of Silvergate

      Reply
    149. 149.

      gvg

      March 13, 2023 at 10:47 am

      @Baud: One thing I heard, which has not been followed up on or repeated, and might be incorrect, is that the startups were required to keep their payrolls in this one bank instead of spreading them around as standard practice. This may have been a way for the bank to increase it’s profit but also would increase the risk to the bank and the companies plus it’s monopolistic. Someone else said their are companies that specialize in spreading accounts around so they aren’t over the FDIC insured limit and that is what should have been done.

      Second, managing risk means you spread your investments around. You do not hold all your loans in one area, you do not hold all your loans as risky. You want an assortment, some tech, some construction, some agriculture and then a small high risk high return, a fairly large medium risk medium return and a medium amount of very low risk low return and so on.  Even if you specialize in making high risk high return loans, you sell off the majority to other lenders and buy their loans.  This is how banks move mortgages around so that they don’t go under if a local region has a downturn. This bank would also be selling those loans based on their own reputation for being able to judge and manage for the other banks that specific kind of loan, and charge a management fee for it.

      Evidently, they were not able to judge how to balance risk products OR maybe nobody else was willing to buy shares in their product. that seems unlikely though if they really were that big. I think they got too greedy and kept too much of the product because they wanted the returns on the high return products which would be a lot higher than most stocks.

       

      All speculation on my part though.

      Reply
    150. 150.

      SFAW

      March 13, 2023 at 10:50 am

      @Baud:

      I prefer to think of them as bad “jokes.”

      That said, I’m heading over to Newport, maybe spend some time on my yacht, see ya later.

      Reply
    151. 151.

      Wanderer

      March 13, 2023 at 10:50 am

      @Van Buren: very sorry for your loss.

      Reply
    152. 152.

      Anyway

      March 13, 2023 at 10:53 am

      @RevRick:

       What happened at SVB is symptomatic of a larger global problem, and that is a credit glut. We have more money than we know what to do with.

      . . .

      Hence a worldwide credit glut of too much money chasing after too few worthwhile investment opportunities.

      Yes, this is my soapbox too – too much capital nd not enough investments opportunities. Tax the HedgeFunders…

      Reply
    153. 153.

      Bill Arnold

      March 13, 2023 at 10:55 am

      Did this get covered yet?
      George Santos masterminded 2017 ATM fraud, former roommate tells feds – “Santos taught me how to skim card information and how to clone cards,” Gustavo Ribeiro Trelha, who was convicted of felony access device fraud, said Wednesday in a sworn declaration submitted to the FBI. (JACQUELINE SWEET, 03/09/2023)

      “I am coming forward today to declare that the person in charge of the crime of credit card fraud when I was arrested was George Santos / Anthony Devolder,” Gustavo Ribeiro Trelha wrote in the declaration. It was sent by express mail and email to the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service New York office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, according to a copy of the receipt from the United States Postal Service.
      Telha decided to contact law enforcement officials after seeing the newly minted congressman on television, he said in the declaration.

      I am rather negative about people involved in card skimming. Like “life in prison” negative.
      Similarly negative about those in the GOP who support him because he is a key support for their precarious, precious House majority.

      Reply
    154. 154.

      evodevo

      March 13, 2023 at 11:02 am

      @Another Scott: ​
        Yep..one of the best books detailing that crisis is Stephen Pizzo’s Inside Job…

      Reply
    155. 155.

      Sure Lurkalot

      March 13, 2023 at 11:05 am

      @lowtechcyclist: Yeah. Mr. Big funds startup that “pencils out” in 5 years but only if the funds are deposited in a One And Only Bank? Seems fishy too me.

      Reply
    156. 156.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 11:05 am

      @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):

      He’s entitled to withdraw his money. Not clear why the failure of one bank caused him to withdraw his money from another.

      Reply
    157. 157.

      stinger

      March 13, 2023 at 11:08 am

      @Van Buren: So sorry to hear about your Fiona.

      I’ve had rescues that became family, and one that remained fairly mistrustful of humans even after 8 years with me. She lived to age 16!  I loved her dearly and miss her.

      Reply
    158. 158.

      Cameron

      March 13, 2023 at 11:08 am

      @Bill Arnold: With a sterling record like this, how can Santos not be Trump’s running mate in 2024?

      Reply
    159. 159.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 11:08 am

      @Baud:   Friend said Thiel’s peons were on CNBC all day Thursday talking about withdrawing the money, adding to panic.  I don’t know why any bank would service him, he is a systemic risk.

      Reply
    160. 160.

      cain

      March 13, 2023 at 11:10 am

      @Van Buren: So sorry to hear that – at least she knew she was loved even if she never bonded with a human. Good on you and everyone who was in her life.

      Reply
    161. 161.

      Baud

      March 13, 2023 at 11:15 am

      @eclare:

      Maybe he was trying to crash the market so he could pick up some assets on the cheap.

      Reply
    162. 162.

      NotMax

      March 13, 2023 at 11:15 am

      The name is Bonds. Blames Bonds.
      //

      Reply
    163. 163.

      gvg

      March 13, 2023 at 11:17 am

      @Bill Arnold: Credibility problem of person reporting it. Criminals make poor prosecution witnesses and have motives for blaming others, especially if they want lighter sentences. So he needs to provide proof. Santos is in the news and is a popular target of opportunity right now. We do have evidence about him already.

      Reply
    164. 164.

      eclare

      March 13, 2023 at 11:17 am

      @Baud:

      That would not surprise me.

      Reply
    165. 165.

      catothedog

      March 13, 2023 at 11:17 am

      @Victor Matheson:

      This is not an evil banker story. The rush to demonize all plutocrats and   the desire to see everything burn is clouding peoples judgement.

      SVB had a liquidity problem. They had to do a fire sale of bonds  to meet their withdrawals, and bond prices have gone down because of interest rate hikes.   However these bonds will get their full price if held to maturity.

      Raising additional capital would have certainly made SVB an ongoing   but middling business.

      They had a bank run.  I do not think many banks would survive a run of the magnitude SVB faced, despite the stress tests, Dodd Frank  and all.

      SVB situation was known  a month ago, about what would happened if SVB had a run

      https://twitter.com/ByrneHobart/status/1628779894183272452

      Barring a run, they would have continued. It was the run that broke them.

      As to why a run happened, here is an interesting perspective that there are many folks with vested interests who want to destroy banking. The tech-finance crowd (anti-Fed  crypto and gold bugs,  anti-dollar  Russia, and all the private money aficionados pining for the old days  before the  1930s –  all the rulers of the world who have been deprived of their rightful power)

      https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1634853362494746626?cxt=HHwWhMDRtZWelbAtAAAA

      SVB has sufficient balance sheet assets to cover.

      No other banks have the same degree of exposure as this one to disinformation-based attacks by Thiel and his colleagues.

      They are behaving like financial terrorists, and they are at large. They should be widely mocked and pilloried by government and press for what they are attempting here. • This is part of a longstanding beef over the gold standard and general disgust at the Federal Reserve.

      Read the whole thread.

      SVB Management botched the effort to raise additional capital.  That is all.

      Reply
    166. 166.

      SFAW

      March 13, 2023 at 11:19 am

      @Baud: ​ More than one person has asked whether Thiel shorted SVB’s stock. If he did, it would lead one to wonder whether he “helped things along.”​
       
      ETA: I have no idea if he did, but it’s semi-fun to speculate about less-than-honorable behavior by Thiel.

      Reply
    167. 167.

      Kristine

      March 13, 2023 at 11:20 am

      @Van Buren: I am so sorry.

      Reply
    168. 168.

      Ceci n est pas mon nym

      March 13, 2023 at 11:20 am

      @Bill Arnold: He gets around in the crime world, doesn’t he? Quite an amazing number and variety of scams for such a young guy.

      Prediction how this all ends. There’s finally enough dirt on him that he has to resign Congress, but he’s immediately snatched up by the RNC as Director of Dirty Tricks for a 7-figure salary, plus he gets a side gig as a Fox commentator.

      Reply
    169. 169.

      Wapiti

      March 13, 2023 at 11:21 am

      @RevRick: As for making banksters pay, how do you criminalize stupidity?

      Apparently, when someone dies while on Medicaid, the government can hold up estates and claw back gifts made within 5 years. Which makes sense, as some will gift away their funds to family and then go on Medicaid and let the government (ie, the rest of us) cover their hospitalization.

      Maybe the government should likewise claw back bonuses and excessive salaries, stock options, etc., made by a company prior to bankruptcy, or in this case, a bank failure. Five years might be a bit much, but I wager investors like Mitt Romney could figure out how to take maximum money from a company and then let it languish for 5 years.

      Reply
    170. 170.

      Manyakitty

      March 13, 2023 at 11:25 am

      @Betty Cracker: gorgeous picture 😍

      Reply
    171. 171.

      Queen of Lurkers

      March 13, 2023 at 11:26 am

      @David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch: Hugh Grant was clearly talking about the concept which is rooted in Ecclesiastes. Vanity Fair is a town (of frivolity, excess, luxury) in John Bunyan’s 17th century allegorical narrative _Pilgrim’s Progress_.

      Reply
    172. 172.

      kindness

      March 13, 2023 at 11:30 am

      We see Peter Theil helped push the run on SVB.  He pulled all his money Thursday and then proceeded to tell everyone he knew to do the same.  I have to wonder if he also then shorted the stock.  If that were the case, wouldn’t that mean he pantsed himself as that stock is now worthless?

      Reply
    173. 173.

      Kosh III

      March 13, 2023 at 11:36 am

      “And as long as the persons with ownership interests in the bank are not bailed out, and not a nickel of any compensation owed to bank execs is paid, then that’s the important thing.”

      Ina fair world, they, along with Jamie Dimon, Larry summers, GoldmanSachs and probably half of Wall Street would be dangling from the end of a rope.

      Since it’s not a fair world, I’ll be happy if they end up a homeless camp somewhere, trying to get SNAP.

      Reply
    174. 174.

      Ruckus

      March 13, 2023 at 11:46 am

      @Baud:

      This shows how the people that loan the money often have really not much of a clue how that money they loan does anything positive. It isn’t just loan more money. At some point they have to do due diligence but greed gets in the way of that – and because due diligence actually takes effort, decision making, and risk no matter how well one does the first two. When the entire premise is make me very wealthy without a lot of effort, me is very likely going to make a few very expensive mistakes in process. That seems to be the case here.

      Reply
    175. 175.

      OverTwistWillie

      March 13, 2023 at 12:08 pm

      I’d hazard the VC deposit requirements are about transparency. I know, vampire squids, stonks, banksters, blah, blah, blah, but it helps to avoid questions like where has the payroll been going, and who bought all these fucking foosball tables!?!

      Reply
    176. 176.

      StringOnAStick

      March 13, 2023 at 12:11 pm

      @lowtechcyclist: The bank should have been “laddering” their treasury purchases, and the Fed has been very clear from the beginning of this rate hike series that would continue to raise rates and what economic criteria they were using to do so.

      On the other hand (required, since we’re talking economics here), these higher rates are great for people with retirement funds to invest in safe interest bearing instruments.  Annuities in A rated firms have had 5% rates available for months now.

      Reply
    177. 177.

      Ruckus

      March 13, 2023 at 12:14 pm

      @Citizen Alan:

      When you have something like say $250 million, just a tad more than $250 thousand to put into numerous banks it gets a tad difficult to actually use in large amounts, which is rather likely in a large corporation. When I owned a corporation I once spent just over a 1/4 of a mil in about 5 minutes. It wasn’t cash out the door in one go, and the purchase was the collateral so worse case neither the seller nor the buyer were taking the level of risk it sounds like. Also the purchase earned/could earn far more than it’s cost. But still, the purchase was more than the bank insurance level and both the buyer and the seller were OK with that.

      My point is that even small businesses can make purchases larger than the Federal coverage level, all in one go. A bigger business is likely to make them far more often, the payroll may be bigger than 1/4 mill per month or even per week.

      Reply
    178. 178.

      ErikaF

      March 13, 2023 at 12:16 pm

      @Citizen Alan: Long time lurker, probably first time commenter. There was a policy at SVB that once you open an account with them, you can’t open other accounts. For startups and the company stage of “transitioning from being regarded as startup to a small/medium size company” there aren’t a lot of banks that will work with them. The company I work for is one of these – and they shifted to another bank over the weekend now that they have enough money and size to be able to do so.

      Reply
    179. 179.

      StringOnAStick

      March 13, 2023 at 12:28 pm

      Deleted.

      Reply
    180. 180.

      Ruckus

      March 13, 2023 at 12:48 pm

      @Chris T.:

      Seems to me it might be time for a slight revamp of the FDIC. As wealth builds it often does so over a relatively few humans. But as we are seeing now as wealth grows so does the number of people with more of it. I know it’s not a huge indicator of who/where the money is but the Forbes wealthiest 400 are ALL billionaires now. Not long ago that department wasn’t nearly that big. It means that the money is not just swimming upstream it is flooding upstream. It means that the system needs to adjust to the new reality of bigger numbers. Hell I bought a house in 1984 for $150K, sold it 10 yrs later for over twice as much. It’s now worth over twice that much. Yes it’s not like that in many places but it is in places with a higher density. This may be why the FDIC made the decisions they did, because the legislature is always going to lag monetary progress.

      Reply
    181. 181.

      RevRick

      March 13, 2023 at 1:31 pm

      @phdesmond: I’ve been watching the Medieval Legacy on Wondrium, and Carol Symes, the presenter, noted the word entered the lexicon from the Arabic, and specifically with regards to long distance trade.

      Reply
    182. 182.

      lowtechcyclist

      March 13, 2023 at 1:33 pm

      @Ruckus:

      the legislature is always going to lag monetary progress.

      Or regress.  We really need drastically higher tax rates on rich people, but here we are.

      Reply
    183. 183.

      RevRick

      March 13, 2023 at 1:49 pm

      @Wapiti: what you’re describing is Medicare fraud. Banking aspires to be boring af, but bad decisions are a feature, not a bug of the business. All sorts of exogenous factors can throw a monkey wrench in the operation.
      During the 70s, for example, commercial banking in the US was in horrible shape. Regulation Q (part of Glass-Steagel) capped the %on interest that banks could pay on accounts, and with inflation soaring they were bleeding capital to non-bank institutions. (In 1950, US commercial banks owned 75% of global assets; by 1980, no U.S. commercial bank was ranked in the top 25!).

      Reply
    184. 184.

      Ruckus

      March 13, 2023 at 2:22 pm

      @lowtechcyclist:

      As long as there are dipshits in congress on the other side, the no taxation for the people that can easily afford it side, there will always be that problem. And the people with money can easily afford to pay more, they just have the money to payoff people to make sure that they don’t have to pay more. I bet it’s cheaper to buy off the NO TAX INCREASES FOR THE WEALTHY asswipes than to pay a dime more in taxes. That’s snark BTW….. OK somewhat snark…..

      Reply
    185. 185.

      azlib

      March 13, 2023 at 2:34 pm

      @Baud: I agree. The depositers will be paid from the bank assets and if that is not enough from  a fund with money from banks. I agree the VCs are ridiculous in their faux libertarianism. But getting workers paid and bills paid on time reduces a lot of uncertainty. Hopefully, one result will be strengthening bank regulation.

      Reply
    186. 186.

      phdesmond

      March 13, 2023 at 2:52 pm

      @RevRick:

      i’ll be darned!

      rischio:
      Variante di risico, dal gr. biz. rhizikó, dall’arabo rizq •sec. XII.

      wiktionary:
      Etymology[edit]
      From earlier risque, from Middle French risque, from Old Italian risco (“risk”) (modern Italian rischio) and rischiare (“to run into danger”). Displaced native Old English pleoh (“risk”) and plēon (“to risk”).

      hide ▲speculation on earlier roots

      Most dictionaries consider the etymology of these Italian terms uncertain, but some suggest they perhaps come from Vulgar Latin *resicum (“that which cuts, rock, crag”) (> Medieval Latin resicu), from Latin resecō (“cut off, loose, curtail”, verb), in the sense of that which is a danger to boating or shipping; or from Ancient Greek ῥιζικόν (rhizikón, “root, radical, hazard”).

      A few dictionaries express more certainty. Collins says the Italian risco comes from Ancient Greek ῥίζα (rhíza, “cliff”) due to the hazards of sailing along rocky coasts. The American Heritage says it probably comes from Byzantine Greek ῥιζικό, ριζικό (rhizikó, rizikó, “sustenance obtained by a soldier through his own initiative, fortune”), from Arabic رِزْق‎ (rizq, “sustenance, that which God allots”), from Classical Syriac ܪܘܙܝܩܐ ,ܪܙܩܐ‎ (rezqā, rōzīqā, “daily ration”), from Middle Persian [script needed] (rōčig), from Middle Persian [script needed] (rōč, “day”), from Old Persian [script needed] (*raučah-), from Proto-Indo-European *lewk-.

      Cognate with Spanish riesgo, Portuguese risco

      Reply
    187. 187.

      Bill Arnold

      March 13, 2023 at 3:02 pm

      @gvg:

      Credibility problem of person reporting it.

      What’s interesting in this case is that the accused has even worse credibility problems; he lies all the time and some of those lies have been proven. (or “proved” for those who care.)
      That makes “DeSantos” vulnerable in ways that ordinary people are not.

      Reply
    188. 188.

      Subsole

      March 13, 2023 at 4:26 pm

       

       

      @Kosh III: Given that’s where they’re trying to put all of us, I have to say you are a much, much nicer person than me…

       

      @Ruckus: I don’t think it’s the money/cost. It’s power games. It may be more expensive for me to buy off a politician to keep my taxes low, but that’s me pushing my will on you. Paying the taxes might be cheaper, but it’s you telling me, your better, what to do.

      Past a certain point, it ain’t about the money. Past a certain point, being an asshole becomes its own reward.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    If you don't see both the Visual and the Text tab on the editor, click here to refresh.

    Clear Comment

    To reply to more than one person, click the X to save & close the box.

    Primary Sidebar

    Recent Comments

    • TS on Late Night Open Thread: Same Bullsh*t, Different Decade (Apr 2, 2023 @ 4:28am)
    • Brachiator on Late Night Open Thread: Same Bullsh*t, Different Decade (Apr 2, 2023 @ 4:23am)
    • AlaskaReader on Late Night Open Thread: Same Bullsh*t, Different Decade (Apr 2, 2023 @ 4:23am)
    • Hangö Kex on Late Night Open Thread: Same Bullsh*t, Different Decade (Apr 2, 2023 @ 4:23am)
    • Steeplejack on Late Night Open Thread: Same Bullsh*t, Different Decade (Apr 2, 2023 @ 4:10am)

    Balloon Juice Meetups!

    All Meetups
    Seattle Meetup coming up on April 4!

    🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

    Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
    Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

    Fundraising 2023-24

    Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

    Balloon Juice Posts

    View by Topic
    View by Author
    View by Month & Year
    View by Past Author

    Featuring

    Medium Cool
    Artists in Our Midst
    Authors in Our Midst
    We All Need A Little Kindness
    Classified Documents: A Primer
    State & Local Elections Discussion

    Calling All Jackals

    Site Feedback
    Nominate a Rotating Tag
    Submit Photos to On the Road
    Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
    Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
    Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

    Twitter / Spoutible

    Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
    WaterGirl (Spoutible)
    TaMara (Spoutible)
    John Cole
    DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
    Betty Cracker
    Tom Levenson
    TaMara
    David Anderson
    Major Major Major Major
    ActualCitizensUnited

    Join the Fight!

    Join the Fight Signup Form
    All Join the Fight Posts

    Balloon Juice Events

    5/14  The Apocalypse
    5/20  Home Away from Home
    5/29  We’re Back, Baby
    7/21  Merging!

    Balloon Juice for Ukraine

    Donate

    Site Footer

    Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

    • Facebook
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    • Comment Policy
    • Our Authors
    • Blogroll
    • Our Artists
    • Privacy Policy

    Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

    Insert/edit link

    Enter the destination URL

    Or link to existing content

      No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.
        Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

        Email sent!