Did you read that article? It says exactly what I’ve been saying.
The headline is super misleading and it hooked you.
As I’ve been saying, you clearly don’t understand this issue. That’s why you don’t try to debate any of it.
1 Like
One way or the other tax payers are on the hook. Banks will charge bigger fees…to whom rtcoog? The money fairy? To you and I. That in itself is a bailout. There is no ways I should be paying to cover for these idiots. Anybody that has any financial sense knows not put in more than $250k in one bank. 2008 proved to everyone that bankers are NOT TO BE TRUSTED. If anybody wants to learn from this do the following:
ie: $1M to be divided in four banks covered by the FDIC.
Research who is making up the bank’s board, officers. svb had apparently one true banker on its payroll.
You want to invest in anything? Understand the product that you are investing in.
Basics, basics. The real worrisome present danger is knowing how many banks are in the same svb mess.
By increasing rates at the frantic pace the feds EXPOSED these idiots. You go to Vegas and lose $2B’s. Should the feds reimburse you?
This is what it equates to.
Lol, that’s how you’re going to try and argue this (I do appreciate you at least trying now but this argument isn’t a winner). You have no idea if that will happen, just speculation and mental gymnastics.
You aren’t. You would have if they had done nothing though.
Anyone with financial sense knows that doesn’t work for businesses and institutions.
Not responding to the rest of your rant but everyone can see from the first few sentences where that would lead. Quit while you’re behind like usual.
2 Likes
Absolutely he didn’t. He didn’t read the other article we asked him to read either.
I will agree with him on one point, the board of directors get blame here too. They were deficient in their role.
He saw the headline and ran with it. It said what he wanted it to say.
The Board deserves lots of blame, of course.
Deserves a lot of blame?
What is this pewee hour?
They are are 100% responsible. These idiots should have been fired a long time. Where was the S.F. fed Director? Irresponsible redefined.
Lol, you’re just nitpicking. I had a feeling you would come back and jump on that issue only.
1 Like
[quote=“92010Coogs, post:46, topic:44540”] These idiots should have been fired a long time.
Where was the S.F. fed Director?
[/quote]
The Fed doesn’t appoint or fire the board of directors of a privately owned bank.
1 Like
Again, he doesn’t understand this issue, at all.
He really should just bail on this thread like he usually does.
2 Likes
Chris, help me out with my math here… If the bank’s board of directors was 100% responsible, how much percent of the blame is left to assign to the executives at the bank? You know those same executives you called out at the beginning of this thread you started.
2 Likes
Why, WHY do you guys keep swatting at a hornet’s nest.
If you can exercise self-control, do it. A sleeping dog, even a rabid one, bothers no one, unless awakened.
I think I can explain it for those who argue with him, and don’t just mock him
1 Like
Think again the S.F. Fed Dir has oversight over banks in the same area. For svb to go “unnoticed” for so many months makes no sense…or speak about the ineptitude of the local S.F. Fed Dir.
Would you like to explain the SVB situation to 90210? But talk to him like your explaining it to a 3 year old.
While the Fed does have broad authority to regulate banks, I do not believe (in their regular course of business) they approve or disapprove of the board of directors for private banks. They may have that power but I do not think it is exercised except in extreme cases.
However, as you told me to think again, I did better than thinking. I did research, which you likely won’t read. Here is a link to the Fed’s Commercial Bank Examination Manual Federal Reserve Board - Commercial Bank Examination Manual
Look at Section 4000.1, page 1. As I expected, the bank’s shareholders elect the board of directors (just like any other private company). It says nothing about needing the Fed’s approval. There are various federal and state laws that govern the qualifications of the board members and such, but that is about it. Here’s an exerpt so you don’t have to follow the link.
I did see discussion that the fed, as part of its examination process, does grade or critique the board of directors effictiveness. So, yes that is something the fed looks at in its inspections but they do not approve and/or select directors for private commercial banks. Note, in this post when I say “private” I mean non-government owned, rather than having to do if the bank’s stock is publicly traded or not.
If you have some actual backup to refute this, please send it. Though I won’t hold my breath as I still haven’t received from you the info on the Justice Watch lawsuits discussed in another thread. Also there are so many other questions in different threads you left unanswered.
I expect, now that I have proven you wrong about if the Fed approves the directors of private banks that you will vanish from this thread or start a new one about the same subject. This is afterall your pattern.
1 Like
I expect a bunch of nothing in response.
1 Like
The Fed Directors in this example the one located in S.F. has to review what the local banks do or no that can create an svb failure. That is part of their job.
Like I said.
I wasn’t saying that the fed has no role in oversight. All I was arguing is that the fed does not approve the directors of a private bank. You told me to think again about it, I did better than just think, I found the answer and proved you wrong about this one point.
We are in agreement that the fed’s has an oversight role in general, but does not handle day to day operations or make decisions on who board directors will be, etc.
3 Likes