My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
SVB UK is well resourced the only issue is how long it will take to get the money to their depositors. It could take a few months which would see firms go bust.
Or the government can step and help reduce that time.
Why does the government step in here but not for other things?
By your logic no bank can ever fail. Because it is never the fault of the firms borrowing the money or depositing it.
We were recently sternly warned that the Public Sector wasn't productive, and didn't respond to market signals. Therefore we should have a huge cut in funding to liberate us to be more efficient. It appears that there are are different incentives for the tech sector. Who knew?
The tech sector didn’t have a problem. A bank did.
The shareholders (the bank owners) are going to lose their shirts. The people who deposited the money with bank will get most of it back.
The issue is how fast they get it back.
Cant. Why did none of them bank with any bugger else?
SVB lent to start ups, tech, medical sciences etc when others wouldn’t.
So you’ve got very profitable firms about to get wiped out through no fault of their own.
That's the free market. Suck it up. If they are profitable why wouldn't anyone else lend to them? They should be fighting over it
Start ups have no track record. Most banks will not lend to companies without three years worth of audited accounts.
Plus the shareholders of SVB are going to get wiped out. That is the free market in action.
So the government should only step in to help tech start ups? Is that the logic here?
No.
The logic is that unlike 2008 that government intervention isn’t going to cost the taxpayer anything other than a very small bridging loan costs which will be recouped.
It’s not about money it’s about the principle.
This is a private company. So why does the government step in to help but not help other things?
To prevent contagion.
If you want to see civil disorder like never before then see the banking sector seize up.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Yes, of course, the political classes are some giant conspiracy.
Of course, it does rather raise the question of why the Remain camp in the referendum was quite so extraordinarily incompetent. But, don't worry, I'm sure you can think of a couple of good (albeit absurd) explanations.
Quick question for you: who exactly is in on this plan? Presumably, the government would need to be, because otherwise they might have very sensibly ignored his ridiculous comments.
There isn't much of a conspiracy, there are openly proposed changes, ones that are extremely deleterious to the wealth and wellbeing of the vast majority of people, because they amount to an enormous misappropriation of peoples' money, and unacceptable encroachments on peoples' freedoms, primarily but not exclusively by dangling the theat of a man-made climate catastrophe. Careerist politicians, who are fairly easily identified, have decided that this is the way that the wind is blowing, so they will go along with it. Careerist civil servants likewise. It is important that there is no real political choice. If there were, decisions that are going to be massively unpopular would be overturned. Britain has ended up with a choice of Davos man one or Davos man two. Given that the Davos prospectus is one that nobody voted for, and if it were in a manifesto, nobody would, that cannot be right.
It doesnt matter to rcs anyway. He flies regularly business class london to la and is part of the privileged top 5 % who wont be impacted by climate change measures. So he can afford to support them.
What a ridiculous and outrageous statement.
These climate change measures are a disaster for me personally. Any hope I had of flying private back and forth has now been completely extinguished. So don't give me this "wont be impacted" bullshit.
Then you should do your best to do something about it. There is far too much defeatism and hand throwing up around what is essentially a tiny minority inflicting their pecadillos on a vast majority.
I think the vast majority don't want to deal with the long term impact of climate change.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
This time, since the owners (shareholders) will get nothing.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
We were recently sternly warned that the Public Sector wasn't productive, and didn't respond to market signals. Therefore we should have a huge cut in funding to liberate us to be more efficient. It appears that there are are different incentives for the tech sector. Who knew?
The tech sector didn’t have a problem. A bank did.
The shareholders (the bank owners) are going to lose their shirts. The people who deposited the money with bank will get most of it back.
The issue is how fast they get it back.
Cant. Why did none of them bank with any bugger else?
SVB lent to start ups, tech, medical sciences etc when others wouldn’t.
So you’ve got very profitable firms about to get wiped out through no fault of their own.
That's the free market. Suck it up. If they are profitable why wouldn't anyone else lend to them? They should be fighting over it
Start ups have no track record. Most banks will not lend to companies without three years worth of audited accounts.
Plus the shareholders of SVB are going to get wiped out. That is the free market in action.
So the government should only step in to help tech start ups? Is that the logic here?
No.
The logic is that unlike 2008 that government intervention isn’t going to cost the taxpayer anything other than a very small bridging loan costs which will be recouped.
It’s not about money it’s about the principle.
This is a private company. So why does the government step in to help but not help other things?
To prevent contagion.
If you want to see civil disorder like never before then see the banking sector seize up.
It would bugger up well run banks.
Then yes you are advocating banks never being allowed to fail.
Socialism for banks. Privatisation for everyone else.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
The depositors would (people like you and me who have money in the bank). I don't think the shareholders or bondholders would. The mortgage book would probably be sold off in chunks or given to UKAR. The last time that happened NRAM made the government a pretty tidy profit.
A leading leftwing thinktank has come out in support of home secretary David Blunkett's controversial plan to send all asylum seekers to processing centres outside the EU.
But Demos says in a study published today that the British government's plan for international transit processing centres is unlikely to work unless it is part of a comprehensive system to handle all those who want to come to Europe, including tourists and other visitors.
European commission officials have been asked to submit a detailed working paper on Mr Blunkett's radical scheme to deal with asylum seekers in time for the next European summit in June.
The idea of offshore processing centres has been floated at a time when Tony Blair has announced a commitment to halving the monthly total of asylum applications in Britain by September. The prime minister is believed to have met Downing Street and Home Office officials last Thursday to review progress.
Offshore processing centres are clearly an excellent idea, because they:
(a) make it much harder for people to disappear into the local community (b) discourage people from coming generally
However, they need to be seen as only part of the solution. Many of the people on the boats (particularly those from places like Albania) have no desire to become Asylum seekers. They'd much rather not be picked up by the authorities. So we need to put measures in place to largely shut down the "black" economy in the UK.
Careful Robert.
You're dangerously close to discussing the issue rationally and making practical suggestions.
And if its Albanians - a country with a population under 3m - which make up such a large part of the problem.
Then what happens if anything near an equal proportion from failed and unpleasant countries in Africa and Asia follow them ?
So say we can resolve the Albanian issue, do you still support the next three most popular, Afghanistan Iraq and Syria being deported? Because of our actions these people are fleeing.
Could it be that because these people are not white people - not you - don’t want them here?
I'd say people tend to be more supportive of people they can empathise with, who don't seem a threat, will possibly return to their own countries and who are willing to integrate into the general society.
The Ukrainians (and likewise Hong Kongers) score highly on all those aspects - the others less so.
Personally speaking my ranking of sympathy and sense of obligation would be:
1) Iraqis - UK actions contributed to problems there though it was certainly already an unpleasant place
2) Syria - No real UK involvement but at least some Syrians fought for freedom
3) Afghanistan - No sympathy, large amounts of UK money and lives helped give them a chance but it was the Taliban they were happy with
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
We were recently sternly warned that the Public Sector wasn't productive, and didn't respond to market signals. Therefore we should have a huge cut in funding to liberate us to be more efficient. It appears that there are are different incentives for the tech sector. Who knew?
The tech sector didn’t have a problem. A bank did.
The shareholders (the bank owners) are going to lose their shirts. The people who deposited the money with bank will get most of it back.
The issue is how fast they get it back.
Cant. Why did none of them bank with any bugger else?
SVB lent to start ups, tech, medical sciences etc when others wouldn’t.
So you’ve got very profitable firms about to get wiped out through no fault of their own.
That's the free market. Suck it up. If they are profitable why wouldn't anyone else lend to them? They should be fighting over it
Start ups have no track record. Most banks will not lend to companies without three years worth of audited accounts.
Plus the shareholders of SVB are going to get wiped out. That is the free market in action.
So the government should only step in to help tech start ups? Is that the logic here?
No.
The logic is that unlike 2008 that government intervention isn’t going to cost the taxpayer anything other than a very small bridging loan costs which will be recouped.
It’s not about money it’s about the principle.
This is a private company. So why does the government step in to help but not help other things?
To prevent contagion.
If you want to see civil disorder like never before then see the banking sector seize up.
It would bugger up well run banks.
Then yes you are advocating banks never being allowed to fail.
Socialism for banks. Privatisation for everyone else.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
And if the parent, BSCH, went bankrupt CHB is saying that ordinary people with savings should lose all of their money to bail in the Spanish parent. Fuck that.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
And if the parent, BSCH, went bankrupt CHB is saying that ordinary people with savings should lose all of their money to bail in the Spanish parent. Fuck that.
I am saying that if a bank’s deposits are always protected the company has no incentive to act properly because they will always be bailed out.
You disagree with me but it happened already and caused a financial crisis.
If we now have effectively unlimited governmental backed depositor insurance won't this make the financial system more brittle as there is now less need to question bank risk taking?
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
And if the parent, BSCH, went bankrupt CHB is saying that ordinary people with savings should lose all of their money to bail in the Spanish parent. Fuck that.
I am saying that if a bank’s deposits are always protected the company has no incentive to act properly because they will always be bailed out.
You disagree with me but it happened already and caused a financial crisis.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
So you’re saying 2008 was a dream?
You realise that the UK has significantly changed the regulatory environment since then right? Or are you just being obtuse because you've lost the argument and have decided to do the broken record because you know you're wrong.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
So every time a bank goes bust the government should step in? When are these people ever allowed to fail?
When there’s no systemic risk. And the banks were allowed to fail - shareholders were wiped out.
Thanks to Trump’s deregulation, followed by the rapid rise in inflation and interest rates, a lot of banks are sitting on large, unrealised capital losses on their bond holdings. There would have been a serious risk of runs on a number of otherwise solvent US banks next week. If they thought there was even a slight risk to their deposits, companies would have rapidly shifted funds from any bank they had even the slightest doubt about to only the best capitalised banks. (Consider that hardly anyone saw the SVB bank run coming.)
Allowing that to happen, and multiple banks to fail, would have cost governments a lot more than bailing out SVB.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
So you’re saying 2008 was a dream?
You realise that the UK has significantly changed the regulatory environment since then right? Or are you just being obtuse because you've lost the argument and have decided to do the broken record because you know you're wrong.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company…
Not the company - it’s bust. They’re helping its customers.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
So you’re saying 2008 was a dream?
You realise that the UK has significantly changed the regulatory environment since then right? Or are you just being obtuse because you've lost the argument and have decided to do the broken record because you know you're wrong.
You tell us it has changed. I don’t believe you because of who has been running things since then.
I’m not being obtuse at all Max. Just pointing out to you that if there are no consequences to running a bank into the ground and going bust, a bank will never operate properly.
Just as is happening now. They have acted badly and have gone bust. The government should not ever have to step in by the logic of the market.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
The bank is being wound up. That’s the opposite of a bail out.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
Well the shareholders and bond holders are going to get wiped out.
And?
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
Santander UK wouldn’t get bailed out that’s the whole point of ringfencing.
And if the parent, BSCH, went bankrupt CHB is saying that ordinary people with savings should lose all of their money to bail in the Spanish parent. Fuck that.
I am saying that if a bank’s deposits are always protected the company has no incentive to act properly because they will always be bailed out.
You disagree with me but it happened already and caused a financial crisis.
But the UK bank is ring fenced from the parent. I don't think you understand that. There is a legal separation between UK retail banking and global operations. Those regulations were born out of the 2008 crisis.
A leading leftwing thinktank has come out in support of home secretary David Blunkett's controversial plan to send all asylum seekers to processing centres outside the EU.
But Demos says in a study published today that the British government's plan for international transit processing centres is unlikely to work unless it is part of a comprehensive system to handle all those who want to come to Europe, including tourists and other visitors.
European commission officials have been asked to submit a detailed working paper on Mr Blunkett's radical scheme to deal with asylum seekers in time for the next European summit in June.
The idea of offshore processing centres has been floated at a time when Tony Blair has announced a commitment to halving the monthly total of asylum applications in Britain by September. The prime minister is believed to have met Downing Street and Home Office officials last Thursday to review progress.
Offshore processing centres are clearly an excellent idea, because they:
(a) make it much harder for people to disappear into the local community (b) discourage people from coming generally
However, they need to be seen as only part of the solution. Many of the people on the boats (particularly those from places like Albania) have no desire to become Asylum seekers. They'd much rather not be picked up by the authorities. So we need to put measures in place to largely shut down the "black" economy in the UK.
Careful Robert.
You're dangerously close to discussing the issue rationally and making practical suggestions.
And if its Albanians - a country with a population under 3m - which make up such a large part of the problem.
Then what happens if anything near an equal proportion from failed and unpleasant countries in Africa and Asia follow them ?
So say we can resolve the Albanian issue, do you still support the next three most popular, Afghanistan Iraq and Syria being deported? Because of our actions these people are fleeing.
Could it be that because these people are not white people - not you - don’t want them here?
I'd say people tend to be more supportive of people they can empathise with, who don't seem a threat, will possibly return to their own countries and who are willing to integrate into the general society.
The Ukrainians (and likewise Hong Kongers) score highly on all those aspects - the others less so.
Personally speaking my ranking of sympathy and sense of obligation would be:
1) Iraqis - UK actions contributed to problems there though it was certainly already an unpleasant place
2) Syria - No real UK involvement but at least some Syrians fought for freedom
3) Afghanistan - No sympathy, large amounts of UK money and lives helped give them a chance but it was the Taliban they were happy with
I have lots of sympathy for Afghans and Iraqis who worked for the British and should be rewarded for their service. I also have sympathy for targeted ethnic and religious minorities, who are the equivalent of the Jews in the 1930s. I also have sympathy for gay people, who face awful punishments in Muslim countries.
What I don't have time for is taking in ten of thousands of straight Sunni Afghans and Arabs who are the mainstream in their country. If their country is a mess after 20 years of nation building and billions in aid, they should try to fix it. We can't take in everyone.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
The depositors. People have told you this repeatedly.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
SVB UK have done nothing wrong.
That’s the point.
There will be no bail out.
I work in banking regulation.
Tomorrow I’m going to be in regular contact with inter alia, HMT, the BoE, the PRA, FCA as I have been since Friday.
The reality is simple. Banks can never go bust because the public would get screwed if they were.
So they either need breaking up, regulating or the fuckers need to go to jail for negligence.
Given it is alleged that shares were sold in advance of the crisis, I wouldn't bet against some stripy pyjamas being on the agenda.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
Again not answering my point.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
But the depositors being bailed out isn't the same as the bank being bailed out. The shareholders and bond holders are going to be wiped out. The employees are going to be out of work and some may even end up being done for insider trading given the sale of shares in advance of this happening.
So you’re saying 2008 was a dream?
You realise that the UK has significantly changed the regulatory environment since then right? Or are you just being obtuse because you've lost the argument and have decided to do the broken record because you know you're wrong.
You tell us it has changed. I don’t believe you because of who has been running things since then.
I’m not being obtuse at all Max. Just pointing out to you that if there are no consequences to running a bank into the ground and going bust, a bank will never operate properly.
Just as is happening now. They have acted badly and have gone bust. The government should not ever have to step in by the logic of the market.
And yet they are. Again.
So you're saying that SVB UK should be wound up, fine. But once the asset sales all take place the uninsured depositors will probably get back 103-105p per 100p but months after they've all gone bankrupt because they couldn't make payroll or pay their taxes.
It's about 40k jobs in the UK that are put at risk for what? The government is taking precisely zero risk.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
The depositors. People have told you this repeatedly.
It is like reading @HYUFD who never admits he is wrong
So many posters on here have patiently explained it but he seems incapable of understanding an argument
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
The bankers at this bank certainly won’t be getting any bonuses this year! They’ll be lucky to get a salary.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
The bankers at this bank certainly won’t be getting any bonuses this year! They’ll be lucky to get a salary.
Hopefully they get jail time for selling their shares in advance of announcing they weren't able to secure the $1.8bn financing they needed.
I am really sorry @CorrectHorseBattery3 decided to swear at me as it was not necessary
I would also like to apologise to the forum about the North Wales live poll I posted as I was genuine naive about it and will ensure I am more switched on next time
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
SVB UK have done nothing wrong.
That’s the point.
There will be no bail out.
I work in banking regulation.
Tomorrow I’m going to be in regular contact with inter alia, HMT, the BoE, the PRA, FCA as I have been since Friday.
I know what I’m talking about.
Around half of U.K. startups bank with SVB UK. That’s a lot of jobs and potential economic growth to gamble with.
Protecting depositors is an absolute no brainier, considering that it will cost government next to nothing other than very short term liquidity guarantees.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Then what are they doing it for? The bank has done something wrong and has collapsed. Of course they are being bailed out.
SVB UK have done nothing wrong.
That’s the point.
There will be no bail out.
I work in banking regulation.
Tomorrow I’m going to be in regular contact with inter alia, HMT, the BoE, the PRA, FCA as I have been since Friday.
I know what I’m talking about.
Around half of U.K. startups bank with SVB UK. That’s a lot of jobs and potential economic growth to gamble with.
Protecting depositors is an absolute no brainier, considering that it will cost government next to nothing other than very short term liquidity guarantees.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
It feels more like a reverse merger if it's the Bank of London. David taking over Goliath tends to end badly for David in banking.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
It sounds as though the authorities are quite scared of contagion.
What are the constraints on the facility, and what hoops do banks need to jump through to access it ? I hope it’s not just a massive bung to banks which made the wrong bet on bond markets.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
Details here. https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1635069783329902592 It’s not cashing in at par, but valuing at par as collateral for federal loans. The Fed has recourse for the full amount lent, beyond the actual value of the collateral. ie it’s liquidity, not a capital bung.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
It sounds as though the authorities are quite scared of contagion.
What are the constraints on the facility, and what hoops do banks need to jump through to access it ? I hope it’s not just a massive bung to banks which made the wrong bet on bond markets.
It’s one of those things that can either be a good idea. Or a dementedly stupid toxic waste dump.
"In 2022, the UK branch was required to become a subsidiary bank in its own right, after it hit a threshold of £100m of insured deposits. In absolute numbers that’s comparatively small: in the UK, the first £85,000 deposited is covered by insurance, so SVB could have hit it with only a couple of thousand clients."
(Guardian)
Sounds like it could have been worse in the UK if this had happened before 2022.
I’ve been working in banking regulation since September 2011 and I’ve been planning for an SVB type event since then.
There’s only 3/4 things that could bugger up the banking sector in this country.
1) A nuclear exchange in Ukraine (although we’ll all have bigger problems than the banks)
2) China invades Taiwan
3) The debt ceiling is breached.
Edit
4) American deregulation of banking
5) Aliens
So if TransIllegalImmigrantAlienAIs secretly infiltrate the US government to deregulate banks, then allow the debt ceiling to be breached and conspire with China to launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine… are you telling us that would be suboptimal?
I am not against protecting deposits. Just pointing out that a bank will never behave properly when they have no incentive to do so.
Well, SVB shareholders will lose everything. The employees will lose their jobs - some might be kept if parts of the bank get bought.
The depositors will get most of their money back. Hopefully in a prompt and orderly manner.
Why is this bad?
Why shouldn't companies with large cash holdings place them in risky institutions? Doesn't infinite insurance embrittle the system a little more?
Arranging to get the money bank to people it belongs to isn’t infinite insurance. The money hasn’t been lost - it’s just got a bit stuck in longer term securities.
The US has removed any immediate threat of a bank run, and the liquidity scheme ought to be self funding. Good job.
A reminder to libertarians of the importance both of good regulation (missing in this case, which contributed to the crisis), and the benefits of active and energetic government.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
Details here. https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1635069783329902592 It’s not cashing in at par, but valuing at par as collateral for federal loans. The Fed has recourse for the full amount lent, beyond the actual value of the collateral. ie it’s liquidity, not a capital bung.
And limited to a year.
It depends how it goes.
If run sensibly…. Maaaaaybeee.
I could easily it ending in tears a few years from now.
I am not against protecting deposits. Just pointing out that a bank will never behave properly when they have no incentive to do so.
Well, SVB shareholders will lose everything. The employees will lose their jobs - some might be kept if parts of the bank get bought.
The depositors will get most of their money back. Hopefully in a prompt and orderly manner.
Why is this bad?
Why shouldn't companies with large cash holdings place them in risky institutions? Doesn't infinite insurance embrittle the system a little more?
Arranging to get the money bank to people it belongs to isn’t infinite insurance. The money hasn’t been lost - it’s just got a bit stuck in longer term securities.
That’s not true in the US - SVB lost quite a lot of its remaining depositors cash through forced bond sales. And the cost of holding low yielding ten year bonds at a time of high inflation annd rising interest rates isn’t zero, either.
The US government will have spent quite a lot of money if they make the larger depositors whole.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
Details here. https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1635069783329902592 It’s not cashing in at par, but valuing at par as collateral for federal loans. The Fed has recourse for the full amount lent, beyond the actual value of the collateral. ie it’s liquidity, not a capital bung.
And limited to a year.
It depends how it goes.
If run sensibly…. Maaaaaybeee.
I could easily it ending in tears a few years from now.
In the long run, we’re all… And shorter term, with any luck, US inflation will fall significantly. A more stable interest rate environment would reduce risks.
I’ve been working in banking regulation since September 2011 and I’ve been planning for an SVB type event since then.
There’s only 3/4 things that could bugger up the banking sector in this country.
1) A nuclear exchange in Ukraine (although we’ll all have bigger problems than the banks)
2) China invades Taiwan
3) The debt ceiling is breached...
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1635001527365677057
I am not against protecting deposits. Just pointing out that a bank will never behave properly when they have no incentive to do so.
Well, SVB shareholders will lose everything. The employees will lose their jobs - some might be kept if parts of the bank get bought.
The depositors will get most of their money back. Hopefully in a prompt and orderly manner.
Why is this bad?
Why shouldn't companies with large cash holdings place them in risky institutions? Doesn't infinite insurance embrittle the system a little more?
Arranging to get the money bank to people it belongs to isn’t infinite insurance. The money hasn’t been lost - it’s just got a bit stuck in longer term securities.
That’s not true in the US - SVB lost quite a lot of its remaining depositors cash through forced bond sales. And the cost of holding low yielding ten year bonds at a time of high inflation annd rising interest rates isn’t zero, either.
The US government will have spent quite a lot of money if they make the larger depositors whole.
They lost all the banks money - I think that most of the depositors money survived. The talk seems to be of 90%+ still being there.
Don’t think the US government is going to do unlimited deposit insurance, impromptu or otherwise.
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
To me this smacks of overstraining to supply anti-immigration sentiment with a cod-benign motivation.
Apart from I am not anti immigration as long as its properly managed. ie there is sufficient resources to cope
Burchill on savage form on Lineker. Almost feel sorry for the bloke by the end. It does go to show how his comments should have been addressed (in slightly more democratic terms) by the Government - playing the ball not the man would have been a far better strategy.
Blah, blah, blah Gary Lineker is the epitome of evil. Have you any idea of how utterly ludicrous that article appears to the average person struggling on minimum wage? There's an out of touch elite all right.
I'm definitely very out of touch with whatever point this mess is trying to make.
My question is, by Max’s logic any bank that goes bust we need the government to step in because it isn’t the people who borrowed the money or lent the money’s fault.
But that means all the banks need to be nationalised because they then can never fail.
I'm in favour of a 100% deposit guarantee insurance scheme run by the industry. A high leverage bank would have very high premiums and it would effectively fix the issue of banks running at too high a risk level.
Fine but right now government is stepping in to help a private company.
What you said is that it isn’t the people who put money in’s fault. I agree.
But then a bank can NEVER fail. When is it ever the fault of the people who borrowed or lent them money?
The government aren’t bailing out the bank.
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
As I said it’s the principle.
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
Using the deposit protection scheme isn’t bailing out a bank.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
Not the shareholders, the bankers. They are the ones who will always get away unscathed with their mega bonuses. That's what fucks people off.
Now I really am saying good night!
If there is no buyout of SVB UK then those bankers are out of a job.
There’s already a reported offer for it (don’t know how credible). And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
The American idea of setting up a facility to cash in Treasuries and similar assets at par sounds like a bad reaction - what do you think?
Details here. https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1635069783329902592 It’s not cashing in at par, but valuing at par as collateral for federal loans. The Fed has recourse for the full amount lent, beyond the actual value of the collateral. ie it’s liquidity, not a capital bung.
And limited to a year.
It depends how it goes.
If run sensibly…. Maaaaaybeee.
I could easily it ending in tears a few years from now.
In the long run, we’re all… And shorter term, with any luck, US inflation will fall significantly. A more stable interest rate environment would reduce risks.
Too late. The reckoning goes much further than mere inflation.
All that QE printed money was not free, it was inflationary, the problems merely deferred for a rainy day.
And the inflationary QE money was invested in stocks. The stock markets became inflated.
Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into correction, you may have to bail out and far worse, if you were greedy and didn’t hedge.
In this sense, when it’s pay back time for all that QE, it questions all those politicians and economists we trusted, who QE’d so much for so long they said on our behalf, or was it to fund their political promises and campaigns. Even greater scrutiny if they believed everything was being carefully hedged, no one getting greedy, so turned their heads away…
Meanwhile here’s UK with £2.5 trillion of debt which we didn’t have 10 years ago, and interest rates all over the world are jumping from 0.1% to 5%. Pay back time is just beginning - we have to start finding £125 billion a year to cover the cost of our debt. That’s £5,000 per household.
Will Hunt mention any of this in his budget statement?
A reckoning is coming. And spark to light the bonfire can easily start with markets seeing no plan for growth, so will fairly demand a greater return on their investment - an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt than we have been for much of this century. And where’s money to be found?
Comments
By your logic no bank can ever fail. Because it is never the fault of the firms borrowing the money or depositing it.
So what do you propose to do about that?
If you want to see civil disorder like never before then see the banking sector seize up.
It would bugger up well run banks.
Anyway, the bank is going bust, at least in the US. It is just the depositors that aren't.
If Santander goes bust tomorrow are you honestly telling me they wouldn’t get bailed out? Of course they would.
If the depositors can never lose out that means the banks will ALWAYS get bailed out. Can you not see where this is headed?
The shareholders are going to lose bigly.
Socialism for banks. Privatisation for everyone else.
The Ukrainians (and likewise Hong Kongers) score highly on all those aspects - the others less so.
Personally speaking my ranking of sympathy and sense of obligation would be:
1) Iraqis - UK actions contributed to problems there though it was certainly already an unpleasant place
2) Syria - No real UK involvement but at least some Syrians fought for freedom
3) Afghanistan - No sympathy, large amounts of UK money and lives helped give them a chance but it was the Taliban they were happy with
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/10/uks-largest-lenders-no-longer-too-big-to-fail-says-bank-of-england
Just like in 2008.
If a retail bank goes bust tomorrow they will get bailed out. Because as you said it would cause civil disorder otherwise.
We have learned nothing.
You’re not listening.
No point further engaging with you on this.
You disagree with me but it happened already and caused a financial crisis.
Not a single penny would go to the bank or shareholders.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/10/uks-largest-lenders-no-longer-too-big-to-fail-says-bank-of-england
And the banks were allowed to fail - shareholders were wiped out.
Thanks to Trump’s deregulation, followed by the rapid rise in inflation and interest rates, a lot of banks are sitting on large, unrealised capital losses on their bond holdings.
There would have been a serious risk of runs on a number of otherwise solvent US banks next week. If they thought there was even a slight risk to their deposits, companies would have rapidly shifted funds from any bank they had even the slightest doubt about to only the best capitalised banks. (Consider that hardly anyone saw the SVB bank run coming.)
Allowing that to happen, and multiple banks to fail, would have cost governments a lot more than bailing out SVB.
SVB is gone.
The depositors just need their money back in an orderly fashion.
I’m not being obtuse at all Max. Just pointing out to you that if there are no consequences to running a bank into the ground and going bust, a bank will never operate properly.
Just as is happening now. They have acted badly and have gone bust. The government should not ever have to step in by the logic of the market.
And yet they are. Again.
What I don't have time for is taking in ten of thousands of straight Sunni Afghans and Arabs who are the mainstream in their country. If their country is a mess after 20 years of nation building and billions in aid, they should try to fix it. We can't take in everyone.
It might as well be double glazing salesperson of the year.
Not the bloody news!!!
Goodnight all.
That’s the point.
There will be no bail out.
I work in banking regulation.
Tomorrow I’m going to be in regular contact with inter alia, HMT, the BoE, the PRA, FCA as I have been since Friday.
I know what I’m talking about.
It's about 40k jobs in the UK that are put at risk for what? The government is taking precisely zero risk.
So many posters on here have patiently explained it but he seems incapable of understanding an argument
Now I really am saying good night!
The depositors will get most of their money back. Hopefully in a prompt and orderly manner.
Why is this bad?
I would also like to apologise to the forum about the North Wales live poll I posted as I was genuine naive about it and will ensure I am more switched on next time
That’s a lot of jobs and potential economic growth to gamble with.
Protecting depositors is an absolute no brainier, considering that it will cost government next to nothing other than very short term liquidity guarantees.
And quite a few are likely out of a job even if there is a buyout.
There’s only 3/4 things that could bugger up the banking sector in this country.
1) A nuclear exchange in Ukraine (although we’ll all have bigger problems than the banks)
2) China invades Taiwan
3) The debt ceiling is breached.
Edit
4) American deregulation of banking
5) Aliens
What are the constraints on the facility, and what hoops do banks need to jump through to access it ?
I hope it’s not just a massive bung to banks which made the wrong bet on bond markets.
https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1635069783329902592
It’s not cashing in at par, but valuing at par as collateral for federal loans. The Fed has recourse for the full amount lent, beyond the actual value of the collateral.
ie it’s liquidity, not a capital bung.
And limited to a year.
(Guardian)
Sounds like it could have been worse in the UK if this had happened before 2022.
A reminder to libertarians of the importance both of good regulation (missing in this case, which contributed to the crisis), and the benefits of active and energetic government.
If run sensibly…. Maaaaaybeee.
I could easily it ending in tears a few years from now.
And the cost of holding low yielding ten year bonds at a time of high inflation annd rising interest rates isn’t zero, either.
The US government will have spent quite a lot of money if they make the larger depositors whole.
And shorter term, with any luck, US inflation will fall significantly. A more stable interest rate environment would reduce risks.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1635001527365677057
Don’t think the US government is going to do unlimited deposit insurance, impromptu or otherwise.
US government not doing unlimited deposit insurance - but all depositors protected.
Anything beyond bank assets will be met with a “special assessment on banks”
All that QE printed money was not free, it was inflationary, the problems merely deferred for a rainy day.
And the inflationary QE money was invested in stocks. The stock markets became inflated.
Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into correction, you may have to bail out and far worse, if you were greedy and didn’t hedge.
In this sense, when it’s pay back time for all that QE, it questions all those politicians and economists we trusted, who QE’d so much for so long they said on our behalf, or was it to fund their political promises and campaigns. Even greater scrutiny if they believed everything was being carefully hedged, no one getting greedy, so turned their heads away…
Meanwhile here’s UK with £2.5 trillion of debt which we didn’t have 10 years ago, and interest rates all over the world are jumping from 0.1% to 5%. Pay back time is just beginning - we have to start finding £125 billion a year to cover the cost of our debt. That’s £5,000 per household.
Will Hunt mention any of this in his budget statement?
A reckoning is coming. And spark to light the bonfire can easily start with markets seeing no plan for growth, so will fairly demand a greater return on their investment - an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt than we have been for much of this century. And where’s money to be found?
Finding the money becomes the spark.
A reckoning is coming. Mark my words.