"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."
Bonchie nailed it.
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."
Bonchie nailed it.No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."
Bonchie nailed it.No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. BetterHow much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a world-wide economic disaster.
Are you planning on borrowing to buy a Steinway or Bosendorfer this year?
How about this one? $2.5 million, and it will look just great in your parent's basement.
https://www.steinway.com/pianos/steinway/limited-edition/fibonacci
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
Bonchie nailed it.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the
consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
Are you planning on borrowing to buy a Steinway or Bosendorfer this year?
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
Bonchie nailed it.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the
consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
Bonchie nailed it.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better >>>> to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the
consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they
buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued
as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation.
What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments?
Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Life under your ridiculously ignorant perception that gov't spending is without limits
really just sucks.
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
Bonchie nailed it.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better >>>> to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devaluedThe world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening.
as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation.
What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments?
Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/31/23 10:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
"The country is barreling toward a fiscal cliff that likely can’t even be avoided at this point. The only decision that is getting made is how hard we press the gas on the way there."No, that's a lame metaphor meant to impress the knuckle-draggers.
Bonchie nailed it.
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the
consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.
Are you planning on borrowing to buy a Steinway or Bosendorfer this year?Been there, done that.
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening.Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when theyIt doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy. >>>The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better >>>>>> to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a
world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued
as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation.
How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?
What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments?
Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
I'm sorry....how does that actually help the CRE (commercial real estate) holders?
And another decade of cabrini green style projects is just a repeat of stupidity.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
And another decade of cabrini green style projects is just a repeat of stupidity.Think Vienna and European social housing.
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they >>> buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued >>> as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation. >> The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening.It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy. >>>The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a >>>>>> world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?If bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and Barney Frank) wouldn't roll back regulations.
What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments?
Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
I'm sorry....how does that actually help the CRE (commercial real estate) holders?They get paid.
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:If bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and Barney Frank)
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they >>>>> buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued >>>>> as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation. >>>> The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening.It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy. >>>>>The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better >>>>>>>> to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>>>>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a >>>>>>>> world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?
wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many gov't securities?
They get paid.I'm sorry....how does that actually help the CRE (commercial real estate) holders?What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments?
Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved. >>>
LoL....not more than current market value.
And therein lies the problem.
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:If bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and Barney Frank)
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening. >>>It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>>>>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a >>>>>>>> world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they
buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued
as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation.
wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many gov't securities?The problem was raising the asset threshold.
They get paid.What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments? >>>>> Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
I'm sorry....how does that actually help the CRE (commercial real estate) holders?
LoL....not more than current market value.Because the rich can never be allowed to lose money if you're a Republican.
And therein lies the problem.
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The problem was raising the asset threshold.
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:If bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and Barney Frank)
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the >>>>>>>>>> consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a >>>>>>>>>> world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest?
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they >>>>>>> buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued >>>>>>> as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation. >>>>>> The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening. >>>>>
wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?
Because the rich can never be allowed to lose money if you're a Republican.They get paid.What has the gov't really screwed as bedrock financial investments? >>>>>>> Let's see......first they screw the treasury bill holders
and next up is once premium office real estate in major cities.
Eminent domain and conversion to government-owned housing. Problem solved.
I'm sorry....how does that actually help the CRE (commercial real estate) holders?
LoL....not more than current market value.
And therein lies the problem.
You just can't understand.....that when things go so bad that the rich suffer,
you are well and truly fucked.
On 6/2/23 11:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The problem was raising the asset threshold.
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:If bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and Barney Frank) >>>> wouldn't roll back regulations.
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:How many bank failures does it take to convince you there might be a problem?
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/23 1:25 PM, Art Sackman wrote:The world's leading economy is quite a long way from that happening. >>>>>
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote: >>>>
The only danger from the debt deal was the prospect of default. Better
to have negotiated over a budget or continuing resolution where the
consequence of failure would be only a government shutdown, not a >>>>>>>>>> world-wide economic disaster.
How much of your household budget is spent on debt interest? >>>>>>>> It doesn't matter and you're mixing up a household with a fiat economy.
Yeah.....households don't have the risk of becoming insolvent when they
buy a bunch of gov't T-bills only to discover that they become devalued
as their value plummets from excessive gov't spending driven inflation.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?The asset threshold, just as I said.
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2023/congess-weaken-bank-regulations-connection-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/
Business Insider: The law raised the asset threshold for “systematically important financial institutions” from $50 billion to $250 billion.
This meant that the Silicon Valley Bank — which ended 2022 with about
$209 billion in assets — was no longer designated as a systematically important financial institution. As such, it was not subject to the
tighter regulations that apply to bigger banks.
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:21:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 11:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
The asset threshold, just as I said.The problem was raising the asset threshold.How many bank failures does it take to convince you thereIf bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and
might be a problem?
Barney Frank) wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many
gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2023/congess-weaken-bank-regulations-connection-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/
Business Insider: The law raised the asset threshold for
“systematically important financial institutions” from $50 billion
to $250 billion.
This meant that the Silicon Valley Bank — which ended 2022 with
about $209 billion in assets — was no longer designated as a
systematically important financial institution. As such, it was not
subject to the tighter regulations that apply to bigger banks.
That makes no sense.
Should be deposits that trigger thresholds. Who cares if a bank with
100 billion in deposits has 300 billion in assets.
That's a good thing. In any case....it makes no difference.
On 6/2/23 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:21:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 11:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
The asset threshold, just as I said.The problem was raising the asset threshold.How many bank failures does it take to convince you thereIf bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and
might be a problem?
Barney Frank) wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many
gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2023/congess-weaken-bank-regulations-connection-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/
Business Insider: The law raised the asset threshold for
“systematically important financial institutions” from $50 billion
to $250 billion.
This meant that the Silicon Valley Bank — which ended 2022 with
about $209 billion in assets — was no longer designated as a
systematically important financial institution. As such, it was not
subject to the tighter regulations that apply to bigger banks.
That makes no sense.Looser regulations = greater chance of failure
Should be deposits that trigger thresholds. Who cares if a bank withDepositors.
100 billion in deposits has 300 billion in assets.
That's a good thing. In any case....it makes no difference.The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors from
people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people who simply
file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the New Yorker.
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do
something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people
who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the
New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov't
securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used to
be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on
always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.
On 6/3/23 9:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do
something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people
who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the
New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.There's stuff in there about how the Fed is sensitive to Congressional intent, so blame Congress.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov't securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used tohttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/svb-collapse-2008-financial-crisis
be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on
always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.
"Because even the thin protections of Dodd-Frank were rolled back by
Donald Trump, who in 2018 signed a bill that reduced scrutiny over many regional banks and removed the requirement that banks with assets under $250bn submit to stress testing and reduced the amount of cash they had
to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shock.
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 12:40:34 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/3/23 9:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do
something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people
who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the
New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.There's stuff in there about how the Fed is sensitive to Congressional intent, so blame Congress.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov't securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used to be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/svb-collapse-2008-financial-crisis
"Because even the thin protections of Dodd-Frank were rolled back by Donald Trump, who in 2018 signed a bill that reduced scrutiny over many regional banks and removed the requirement that banks with assets under $250bn submit to stress testing and reduced the amount of cash they hadExactly what I said. If they have to keep more cash on hand they'll have less to invest
to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shock.
in things like treasuries. Less buyers means higher rates at auction.
Higher treasury rates translates to higher interest rates and less economic growth etc.
This is going to stress everyone and all the banks.
If you had a brain you just might feel that brick on your head.
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 12:40:34 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/3/23 9:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:There's stuff in there about how the Fed is sensitive to Congressional
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do
something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people
who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the
New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.
intent, so blame Congress.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov'thttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/svb-collapse-2008-financial-crisis
securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used to
be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on
always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.
"Because even the thin protections of Dodd-Frank were rolled back by
Donald Trump, who in 2018 signed a bill that reduced scrutiny over many
regional banks and removed the requirement that banks with assets under
$250bn submit to stress testing and reduced the amount of cash they had
to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shock.
Exactly what I said. If they have to keep more cash on hand they'll have less to invest
in things like treasuries. Less buyers means higher rates at auction. Higher treasury rates translates to higher interest rates and less economic growth etc.
This is going to stress everyone and all the banks.
On 6/2/23 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:21:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 11:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
The asset threshold, just as I said.The problem was raising the asset threshold.How many bank failures does it take to convince you thereIf bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and
might be a problem?
Barney Frank) wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many
gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2023/congess-weaken-bank-regulations-connection-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/
Business Insider: The law raised the asset threshold for
“systematically important financial institutions” from $50 billion
to $250 billion.
This meant that the Silicon Valley Bank — which ended 2022 with
about $209 billion in assets — was no longer designated as a
systematically important financial institution. As such, it was not
subject to the tighter regulations that apply to bigger banks.
That makes no sense.Looser regulations = greater chance of failure
Should be deposits that trigger thresholds. Who cares if a bank withDepositors.
100 billion in deposits has 300 billion in assets.
That's a good thing. In any case....it makes no difference.The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors from
people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people who simply
file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the New Yorker.
On 6/4/23 4:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 12:40:34 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/3/23 9:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:There's stuff in there about how the Fed is sensitive to Congressional
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do >>>> something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people >>>> who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the >>>> New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.
intent, so blame Congress.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov'thttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/svb-collapse-2008-financial-crisis
securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used to >>> be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on
always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.
"Because even the thin protections of Dodd-Frank were rolled back by
Donald Trump, who in 2018 signed a bill that reduced scrutiny over many >> regional banks and removed the requirement that banks with assets under >> $250bn submit to stress testing and reduced the amount of cash they had >> to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shock.
Exactly what I said. If they have to keep more cash on hand they'll have less to investThe bank failure due to not enough cash on hand is way more stressful
in things like treasuries. Less buyers means higher rates at auction. Higher treasury rates translates to higher interest rates and less economic growth etc.
This is going to stress everyone and all the banks.
than your take on treasury auctions.
On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:43:34 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/4/23 4:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 12:40:34 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The bank failure due to not enough cash on hand is way more stressful
On 6/3/23 9:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:There's stuff in there about how the Fed is sensitive to Congressional >>>> intent, so blame Congress.
The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors
from people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do >>>>>> something about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people >>>>>> who simply file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the >>>>>> New Yorker.
So blame the report readers.
Meanwhile invoke your regs....and discover your market for gov'thttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/svb-collapse-2008-financial-crisis
securities has suddenly shrunk because triple A ain't what it used to >>>>> be. What would that do to interest rates? Every thread you pull on
always drops a brick on your head. That's quite the talent.
"Because even the thin protections of Dodd-Frank were rolled back by
Donald Trump, who in 2018 signed a bill that reduced scrutiny over many >>>> regional banks and removed the requirement that banks with assets under >>>> $250bn submit to stress testing and reduced the amount of cash they had >>>> to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shock.
Exactly what I said. If they have to keep more cash on hand they'll have less to invest
in things like treasuries. Less buyers means higher rates at auction.
Higher treasury rates translates to higher interest rates and less economic growth etc.
This is going to stress everyone and all the banks.
than your take on treasury auctions.
It's die of a fast cut or a slow bleed.
(snip the lame whataboutism)You brought up interest rates.
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:21:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Looser regulations = greater chance of failure
On 6/2/23 11:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/2/23 9:32 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/1/23 10:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 6/1/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
The asset threshold, just as I said.The problem was raising the asset threshold.How many bank failures does it take to convince you thereIf bank failures were a problem, Trump Republicans (and
might be a problem?
Barney Frank) wouldn't roll back regulations.
What regulation would have told banks not to hold too many
gov't securities?
Threshold for what? Insolvency?
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2023/congess-weaken-bank-regulations-connection-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/
Business Insider: The law raised the asset threshold for
“systematically important financial institutions” from $50 billion >>>> to $250 billion.
This meant that the Silicon Valley Bank — which ended 2022 with
about $209 billion in assets — was no longer designated as a
systematically important financial institution. As such, it was not
subject to the tighter regulations that apply to bigger banks.
That makes no sense.
Also grossly ignorant. The failures we've had so far didn't really fail with
the banks cleaned out of deposits and depositors left with nothing.
It didn't come to that. They were declared insolvent by regulatory standards.
Should be deposits that trigger thresholds. Who cares if a bank withDepositors.
100 billion in deposits has 300 billion in assets.
Which would be a very good thing for them....not something that should trigger increased
regulatory standards. That BS is a protection for FDIC....not depositors.
That's a good thing. In any case....it makes no difference.The problem was the 2018 law "because it turned the supervisors from
people who might raise matters requiring attention and then do something
about it, acting on the basis of those matters, to people who simply
file the reports," according to Peter Conti-Brown in the New Yorker.
Again, who is supposed to read the f'ing reports?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:19:44 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,595 |