Vivek Ramaswamy says he would not bail out the Silicon Valley Bank

Republican presidential candidate and biotech mogul Vivek Ramaswamy said Sunday that if he were president, he would not bail out Silicon Valley Bank or its depositors.

"I would not bail out either SVB or even the depositors because here's what's actually going on. SVB made some — Silicon Valley Bank made some uniquely bad management decisions," Ramaswamy told host Kaitlin Collins on CNN’s State of the Union…

…Ramaswamy said "many" Silicon Valley executives have reached out to him this weekend to "push the narrative" of a "bank run in America" if this bank doesn't get "bailed out."

"First of all, they have a depositor base that's really concentrated of tech start-ups in Silicon Valley. A staggering nearly 90 percent of their deposits are uninsured. That's an anomaly compared to most banks in this country," he told CNN on Sunday.

He continued, "So what's happening right now is, a lot of Silicon Valley executives and V.C.s this weekend, many of them have even reached out to me to push this narrative that that's going to create a bank run in America if Silicon Valley Bank isn't actually bailed out. But what they're doing is actually trying to create the fear of one. I think that can actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is dangerous."

The 37-year-old multi-millionaire, who runs his own financial firm Strive Asset Management, examined why Silicon Valley Bank was different than normal banks….









read more news: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-2024-candidate-vivek-ramaswamy-says-he-would-not-bail-out-the-silicon-valley-bank





I wouldn’t bail them out either. They thought that their poop didn’t stink, that they were too good too big to be allowed to fail. 90% of the deposits in that bank were not FDIC insured. They took no basic precautions. They didn’t have sufficient safe assets in their portfolio. Stress test? No. They are a big blue bank servicing big blue investors and big tech. They got what they deserved and so did their non FDIC depositors. They tried to scare others into a bail out with chicken little rhetoric that everyone saw through.

 

The democrat money pot just hit the wall. “Splat”.

 

I hope that they stand firm here. The FDIC should pay up to 250k to each deposit account and make everyone else eat the rest. Then another bank can step in and pick up the pieces. Since it’s a big blue state bank with ties to big tech I expect the feds will cover above the 250k limit to support allied businesses with deposits there. The same with New Yorks Signature Bank that went down today. Blue state, bailed out deposits over 250k.

 

Which is why the FDIC will cover above 250k in deposits this time. It would be totally different if it were a Texas bank largely tied to oil and natural gas.

 

Lucky ME!
I didn't have any money in SVB...
Must suck for people who did...
Oh well...

 

No, they would have done the same thing.

So - tax cuts for businesses = good; avoiding having tens of thousands lose jobs = bad?

Based on your logic, Florida should have gotten no FEMA funding since it is a red state and, the people chose to live there, despite the Hurricane risks. Oh wait they got $150m of taxpayer money. So you were against that too - correct?

FEMA Approves $150 Million for Households in Florida | FEMA.gov

 

One mid size tech company had 90% of its cash reserves in that bank. Several companies and individuals were pretty deep into that bank but nothing like that one was.

 

I just saw a story saying the depositors will be bailed out. Libs protecting libs.

Stock futures gained Sunday evening, after U.S. regulators announced emergency measures to stem the fallout from Silicon Valley Bank's abrupt collapse.

Federal regulators said all depositors of Silicon Valley Bank will get their money. They said a second bank, Signature Bank, was closed and that its depositors will also get their money.


https://stocks.apple.com/ANXbuu8l4RxWXXJnreBLuRw

 

Every one of those unsecured deposits will be covered and its entirely likely the ROD promises for select clients will be too. That was an ESG champion bank. No way this administration doesn't rob some fund to ensure its allies are made whole and then some.

 

But there is no basis for that statement

 

Deposits up to $250,000 are insured through the FDIC

 

The Street temporarily ran with the notion that the threat of collapsing banks will force JPow to back off on rate increases. It was a preoccupation that was over by lunch when the contagion effect took over. We've got 3 banks down, 7 others on the edge. By weeks end we'll have more dead banks, either FDIC forced shutdowns or voluntary cap-call fail shutdowns.

 

Brandons out there tonight blaming Trump for the fall of SVB while WH economic /cough 'experts' like Akavii, Lawless and Price are doing media tours defending the DEI ESG that SVB focused so heavily on. Why would the WH be running spin for SBV unless they were planning a move and needed people to believe it was the right one?

 

Well, Trump's deregulation effort very well may have allowed this to happen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...-silicon-valley-banks-demise/?sh=55cd542a3432

Trump was and is fairly incompetent and stupid.

 

The good news is that before this bank sank they had a month long pride celebration. Here’s a good read on why you don’t let’s far left loons with a woke agenda run things.

Go woke go broke! SVB hired board obsessed with diversity, invested $5BN for 'healthier planet' and held month-long Pride celebration - but had NO chief risk officer for eight months last year

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...N-healthier-planet.html#v-7150860672656688791

 

Except it is money being used by the FDIC, not taxpayer dollars. FDIC is the insurance banks pay into. And if the $250k was the only amount insured, then we will have a financial collapse and tha still won't help diaper boy here.

His whole point is that he wants it as worse as possible so that it can give him the best chance as possible and become the next Moti in this country. Not going to happen even within the GOP.

 

Here's your homework: Tell me how.

Here's me saving you a bunch of wasted time frantically trying to Google a explanation: It couldn't have.

I don't know who first hatched the idea to pin this on Trump but I can imagine in that meeting someone said something like 'lets just reference these changes, no one who believes our bullshit is going to understand them anyways'. The high risk ROD strategy SVB deployed would not have been prevented, mitigated, or even freakin addressed by the changes this prog nutter Mayra Valladares writes about. She knows very little about finance and is betting you know even less.

SVB went heavy on a poor position because it was more concerend with DEI ESG and when Brandonflation got so bad JPow had to pull rates, SVB doubled down and loaded up even more **** bonds. This wasn't Trump. This was just wokies larping as bankers and obliterating client funds in the name of climate extremism and 'damn White people' ideology.

 

I linked a story explaining it. It is available for your review.

 

IT EXPLAINS NOTHING! It makes no connections to what actually happened at SVB. It just lists some Trump-era changes and gives a little history to what they were originally intended for.

SVB went heavy on a poor position because it was more concerned with DEI ESG and when Brandonflation got so bad JPow had to pull rates, SVB doubled down and loaded up even more **** bonds. This wasn't Trump. This was just wokies larping as bankers and obliterating client funds in the name of climate extremism and 'damn White people' ideology.

 

It does.

 

No, it doesn't, because it can't.

Removing regulations has ZERO impact. You know why? Because the removing of regulations doesn't FORCE a bank to not follow them. They could've still maintained all the standards as if the regulations were still in place.

SVB failed because of THEIR OWN decisions.....nobody forced them to do ANYTHING that lead to this.

It's equivalent to removing a speed limit on a road and then someone crashing because they were going way too fast and then blaming it on the fact that there was no speed limit. No, they crashed because they were going too fast, the removal of the speed limit did not force them to make a stupid decision, they did that all on their own.

 

Anytime you invest into startups, any startup, you are puting the fianancial instititon at more risk no matter what. This was the new subprime rate crisis that was experienced when we had the great recession from 2007 to 2009.

 

You cant tell me how though because it doesn't.

 

It takes a certain degree of reckless arrogance to put 65%+ of managed funds into bond plays with 10+ year maturity schedules. But to continue to average into the same play during a period of rampant inflation knowing full well the singular Fed response will bring about yield curve inversion... well that takes vast sums of brazen stupidity.

 

It was fine when we had near-zero interest rates. But the FED raised the interest rates to combat inflation, which meant that it became harder and harder to sell those bonds to other banks in exchange for better debt instruments. In addition, venture capital, aka "crony capitalism" that Ramasworthy thinks it is, was drying up because of inflation and recession fears.

Since Dobbs-Frank never addressed this in 2010 because they were not in play at that time, then I can't blame the GOP. I do blame the managers, especially the CEO, for what he did some 24 hours prior to the bank failure.

So, in another thread, I expect Dobbs-Frank to be revised with regulations to prevent this from happening.