ADVERTISEMENT

Silicon Valley Bank has failed

Yeah, but did he have a hot babe waiting for him at home?
shutterstock_editorial_5852414a.jpg
 
It won't matter in the end regarding the underlying debt, but you might ask the bank asking her to pay to produce the note. That way you can have some assurance that someone else won't make the same claim later. Like I said it won't matter for the actual debt (the purchasing bank can just use a lost note affidavit to prove it's the owner), but it may preclude other claims. At least she can show diligence in paying a fraudster, if it comes to that . . . .
Has the FDIC yet become the official receiver for that bank?

If the FDIC (or some other regulator, like a state regulator) has become the receiver, it's highly likely that is who the borrowers must pay. It is even more highly likely that the borrower will start receiving notices notifying them whom to pay.

I was on the reverse side once. I had a pitifully-small one-year CD in my 401(k) back around 2006-8 with some bank I never heard of. It was supposed to pay 4%+, but the bank failed and was taken over by the FDIC. I received 4-5 email and U.S. Mail notices and even a Fedex-delivered notice shoved behind my screen door telling me the FDIC was in charge and would soon pay me.

The FDIC eventually paid me all the unpaid CD principal but I never received the two unpaid quarterly interest payments that happened not to be due until after the bank failed (when all bets were off).

Has anyone else here ever received payments from the FDIC because of a failed bank?
 
Damn, Brad. You're a hell of a researcher.

Even colorization would not ruin that image. Who is it and what movie? (A friend wants to know.)

Not sure the Hays Code did much good.


Here's one back at you:

Rita-Hayworth-Pinup%2B%25281%2529.jpg
That was Donna Reed. Used to watch the Donna Reed Show all the time as a kid.

Rita Hayworth was a total hottie - my fave of the old Hollywood ladies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
No, he was actually one of the few truly qualified guys to be in there. He married a girl that grew up down the street from me. She's an IU grad.
Evidently he didn't have much influence. Assuming he truly was truly qualified.
 
Evidently he didn't have much influence. Assuming he truly was truly qualified.
The guys got 30 years in investment banking and was at Barclays forever as a CEO in investment banking. He's very highly respected.

I'm sure due to the fact that he was normal and married the way people are supposed to be married male and female that nobody prolly gave him the time of day at that diversified clown show.

And here we are!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The guys got 30 years in investment banking and was at Barclays forever as a CEO in investment banking. He's very highly respected.

I'm sure do to the fact that he was normal and married the way people are supposed to be married male and female that nobody prolly gave him the time of day at that diversified clown show.

And here we are!
Good post per usual. You have things under control in this thread? Joe’s handling the screwed up Dems thread and DANC has the stick a fork in Desantis thread covered. Hoops and jet should be here shortly for support/back up. Dbm is doing research.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Good post per usual. You have things under control in this thread? Joe’s handling the screwed up Dems thread and DANC has the stick a fork in Desantis thread covered. Hoops and jet should be here shortly for support/back up. Dbm is doing research.
Very Funny...I still can't believe these guys are getting bailed...WTF. Thats like the biggest F-U to everyone who has lost in an investment in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Very Funny...I still can't believe these guys are getting bailed...WTF. Thats like the biggest F-U to everyone who has lost in an investment in history.
I don’t know anything about banks and finance other than it’s added to my long list of mistakes in not going into that
 
I don’t know anything about banks and finance other than it’s added to my long list of mistakes in not going into that
Neither do I...I guess I just don't understand why these people get re-imbursed. I mean the depositors...Yes help them out, but the investors should not get money. They lost on their investment move on!

Edit and @

mcmurtry66

at the taxpayers expense
 
Neither do I...I guess I just don't understand why these people get re-imbursed. I mean the depositors...Yes help them out, but the investors should not get money. They lost on their investment move on!

Edit and @

mcmurtry66

at the taxpayers expense
Uh, I don't think investors in failed banks normally get reimbursed by the govt, do they?

Just the depositors get reimbursed, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Very Funny...I still can't believe these guys are getting bailed...WTF. Thats like the biggest F-U to everyone who has lost in an investment in history.
Dirty lib checking in but can’t find much to disagree on with Senator Lankford’s questioning of Janet Yellen. On phone and supremely lazy so I won’t link a damn thing. However, the gist was a question surrounding what level of cover people from Tulsa would get should one of this local banks fail? Would the larger depositors in Tulsa get the same treatment? Yellen basically said “no”.

What the actual f@ck. You’d think think the elites would at least be able to read the room on this shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Indianaftw
That was Donna Reed. Used to watch the Donna Reed Show all the time as a kid.

Rita Hayworth was a total hottie - my fave of the old Hollywood ladies.
Best sexy-face-without-legs-or-chest from those years = Lauren Bacall, right?
Lauren-Bacall.jpg
 
Last edited:
Consider yourself corrected. Biden specifically said the bank's investors would not be bailed out. Depositors only.
But above the 250k max though right? Will the same level of protection apply to the next bank failure but where the bank is 2% the size of SVB?

Not arguing just asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
But above the 250k max though right? Will the same level of protection apply to the next bank failure but where the bank is 2% the size of SVB?

Not arguing just asking.

Yes, all deposits regardless of size. IIUC, this was just for the one bank, SVB. Not sure about the other two, but don't think so. Nothing has been changed system wide.

Yellen's remarks are consistent with the ad hoc nature of the response. She wasn't in a position to pledge deposit coverage to everyone based on a hypothetical. No doubt there will be changes forthcoming, but she's not going to pull promises out of her ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Good post per usual. You have things under control in this thread? Joe’s handling the screwed up Dems thread and DANC has the stick a fork in Desantis thread covered. Hoops and jet should be here shortly for support/back up. Dbm is doing research.

So much for the improved signal to noise....
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
But above the 250k max though right? Will the same level of protection apply to the next bank failure but where the bank is 2% the size of SVB?

Not arguing just asking.
I read they would have to insure 17 trillion if it was all banks. Not sure the exact number, but it’s really big. The big four banks are going to get much larger. They don’t need to say it, but they are too big to fail and fully insured.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and larsIU
Guess who this is.

d491f370594efc44cc7dfa71d56e687e.jpg

Maybe everyone looks great when they are 20.
But above the 250k max though right? Will the same level of protection apply to the next bank failure but where the bank is 2% the size of SVB?

Not arguing just asking.
I believe the FDIC limit per depositor per bank is $250,000.

So, if you have checking, savings, IRA and CD accounts all at the same bank, I believe those are all added together against the $250,000 limit.

And, sorry, but I don't know how that limit applies if you have a wife and she also has checking, savings, IRA and CD accounts at the same bank as you and/or if the two people own some of those accounts jointly at the same bank.

If your bank's doors are not locked on Monday morning, a visit or phone call might be a good idea if you think it's a concern..
 
But above the 250k max though right? Will the same level of protection apply to the next bank failure but where the bank is 2% the size of SVB?

Not arguing just asking.
It's going to be hard for them to not do it going forward. The whole reason they lifted the cap was the reason the raised the cap in 2010 (and at times before that), and in fact was the same reason the FDIC was created in the first place: to give depositors confidence their money is safe in order to prevent bank runs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Let us face, since 2008 the Federal Reserve has been all about easy money while Congress has failed to provide meaningful regulations.

Case in point, the SVB depositors were unprotected by regulators along with being completely uniformed about how SVB was investing their money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
It's been going downhill for a while.


Finally finished this. Sobering for sure, if not frightening.

COH would feel right at home there.

  • “practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve”;
  • “our norms are now hopelessly corrupt and need to be destroyed”;
  • “our body politic is dying”;
  • “in almost every case, the political practices, institutions, and even rhetoric governing the United States have become hostile to both liberty and virtue”;
  • the progressives are “narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves”;
  • “if the defenders of America continue to squabble among themselves, the victory of progressive tyranny will be assured. See you in the gulag”;
  • “America, as an identity or political movement, might need to carry on without the United States.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Finally finished this. Sobering for sure, if not frightening.

COH would feel right at home there.

  • “practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve”;
  • “our norms are now hopelessly corrupt and need to be destroyed”;
  • “our body politic is dying”;
  • “in almost every case, the political practices, institutions, and even rhetoric governing the United States have become hostile to both liberty and virtue”;
  • the progressives are “narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves”;
  • “if the defenders of America continue to squabble among themselves, the victory of progressive tyranny will be assured. See you in the gulag”;
  • “America, as an identity or political movement, might need to carry on without the United States.”
I just don't understand the motivation. claremont was so well regarded. conservative voices in academia, political, political philosphoy depts, are damn near nonexistant. to have claremont In calif no less, (which isn't affiliated with the schools which is of course silly bc of course it was through jaffa etc) to throw its rep in the shitter and embrace insanity is sad
 
Good post per usual. You have things under control in this thread? Joe’s handling the screwed up Dems thread and DANC has the stick a fork in Desantis thread covered. Hoops and jet should be here shortly for support/back up. Dbm is doing research.
With you as coach, I think we could hang a banner this year.
 
  • Love
Reactions: mcmurtry66
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT