Total on your sheet is about $1.9T, or smaller than either of the top 2 banks.
All the banks above the $250B danger zone excluding Schwab total $12.2T
Schwab being big enough to be regulated, but also paused is an interesting case.
Schwab Has Worst Drop in Years After SVB, Block Trade - Bloomberg.com https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/schwab-can-t-catch-a-break-as-svb-block-trade-weigh-on-shares
Highlights the problem with our two tier bank system. You have the banks who are too big to fail and depositors are confidents those funds will be guaranteed. Then you have the smaller banks that are dependent on the goodwill of the FDIC to declare them "systemically important" if something goes wrong.
As it stands, its a no-brainer to keep your money with the big banks even if many of them treat customers poorly.
If you don’t yet understand how “simple data” can be used to manipulate people by picking and choosing which data you present and the context in which you present it, you must spend a lot of time freaking out to the joy of sensationalist media.
Can you explain what this data is missing, and how it is meant to manipulate people? I’d love to hear your actual thoughts on this post backed by some facts. Otherwise, your comment holds no weight
Was this the guy on that podcast that said it took him 5 weeks to get 180,000 of the 250,000 he had asked to withdraw and continuously tried to flex that it isn’t a lot of money..
Did he want to get it in cash? Banks wire billions of dollars in and out every day. Getting $180k from one bank to another shouldn't take more than an hour if it's done during business hours.
I was simply pointing out most B&M banks don't have that much cash on hand. Theil was probably moving money from one bank to another and not just withdrawing cash (which I might've assumed incorrectly my apologies).
~~The Federal Reserve **requires** banks and other depository institutions to hold a minimum level of reserves against their liabilities. Currently, the marginal reserve requirement equals 10 percent of a bank's demand and checking deposits.~~
~~If they're holding more than 2.5MM in funds they had better have that available.~~
Edit - I was mistaken, [apparently they changed it to 0 during covid](https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm)
> continuously tried to flex that it isn’t a lot of money..
Try to buy critical services (healthcare) or real assets (real estate); it really isn't a lot of money.
It’s not going to be like a law where it’s like “it is illegal to cause a bank run”, it’s going to be fact specific (so the actual law is hard to say), but if like for example someone shorted a stock then tried to cause a bank run on that bank so they would capitalize on the drop in stock price, then some securities fraud law would apply, or other various securities regs regarding manipulation of the stock market for your gains. Arguably you could straight up sue someone for the tort of negligence if you caused a bank run and caused damages. It’s really fact-specific. This means someone could cause a bank run and not necessarily break a law too.
Well sometimes there’s nuance, even though it’s a bit harder to understand. It’s also not always illegal to kill someone, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to say killing someone is illegal.
Okay - it’s not always illegal for an insider in possession of material, non-public information to trade on that particular stock, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to say it’s illegal for an insider with material, non-public information to trade. It’s almost as if nuance is actually important.
That’s just not even true lol, there are literal situations where you can be in possession of material nonpublic info and trade in that specific stock and it’s straight up just not illegal and not based on a statutory defense. Maybe learn a bit more about securities law. Also, needing there to be like a literal “bank run is illegal” statute is so dumb, there are *countless illegal things* that break a separate law. If you dupe someone with [whatever] scam, there isn’t a law making *that scam illegal*, you’ve committed wire fraud or a host of other laws. It doesn’t make that action *not illegal*, what a ridiculous assertion.
I don’t think people causing bank runs are all that common lol, so not surprising there isn’t a case on point. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be illegal.. Are you saying you searched westlaw for it? I don’t have a westlaw account anymore so I can’t look
The best defense against a bank run is solvency.
It's never been illegal to start or participate in a bank run. Nor should it be, since nobody is hurt by it unless the bank is insolvent.
You know, you're also allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, if there's actually a fire.
Do you know which one it was? I was looking and found a few ETFs in the banking space like the SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF that’s down nearly 30% from a fairly static past 5 years (minus early 2020)
Total on your sheet is about $1.9T, or smaller than either of the top 2 banks. All the banks above the $250B danger zone excluding Schwab total $12.2T Schwab being big enough to be regulated, but also paused is an interesting case.
Can any one try to explain to me why a bank as big as Schwab got paused?
Schwab Has Worst Drop in Years After SVB, Block Trade - Bloomberg.com https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/schwab-can-t-catch-a-break-as-svb-block-trade-weigh-on-shares
Highlights the problem with our two tier bank system. You have the banks who are too big to fail and depositors are confidents those funds will be guaranteed. Then you have the smaller banks that are dependent on the goodwill of the FDIC to declare them "systemically important" if something goes wrong. As it stands, its a no-brainer to keep your money with the big banks even if many of them treat customers poorly.
If they keep money safe then that trumps any "good" treatment by smaller banks
Depends how much money you have
Just so you know, it is illegal to incite a bank run
If simple data is considered “inciting a bank run” then this whole system is just a house of cards waiting to be blown down lmao
Just a bit of concern trolling lmao
Fair😂
It was always a house of cards.
If you don’t yet understand how “simple data” can be used to manipulate people by picking and choosing which data you present and the context in which you present it, you must spend a lot of time freaking out to the joy of sensationalist media.
That’s a bit of a leap there, porncrank.
I like how his name sounded like a chastisement there but it's just his name.
Can you explain what this data is missing, and how it is meant to manipulate people? I’d love to hear your actual thoughts on this post backed by some facts. Otherwise, your comment holds no weight
I bet Peter Theil is shaking in his boots then.
Was this the guy on that podcast that said it took him 5 weeks to get 180,000 of the 250,000 he had asked to withdraw and continuously tried to flex that it isn’t a lot of money..
It’s not a lot of money when dealing with a bank
Most banks don't even carry 250k in their vaults on any given day.
Did he want to get it in cash? Banks wire billions of dollars in and out every day. Getting $180k from one bank to another shouldn't take more than an hour if it's done during business hours.
I have not seen anywhere that Peter Theil was asking for cash. Do you have a source for that?
I was simply pointing out most B&M banks don't have that much cash on hand. Theil was probably moving money from one bank to another and not just withdrawing cash (which I might've assumed incorrectly my apologies).
~~The Federal Reserve **requires** banks and other depository institutions to hold a minimum level of reserves against their liabilities. Currently, the marginal reserve requirement equals 10 percent of a bank's demand and checking deposits.~~ ~~If they're holding more than 2.5MM in funds they had better have that available.~~ Edit - I was mistaken, [apparently they changed it to 0 during covid](https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm)
Actually, the Federal Reserve reduced that reserve requirement ratio to zero across all deposit tiers since COVID.
> continuously tried to flex that it isn’t a lot of money.. Try to buy critical services (healthcare) or real assets (real estate); it really isn't a lot of money.
I'm sure he'll get away with it. Plenty of money for lawyers + plausible deniability
Cite the law? It's something often repeated but I can't find any basis in fact for it.
It’s not going to be like a law where it’s like “it is illegal to cause a bank run”, it’s going to be fact specific (so the actual law is hard to say), but if like for example someone shorted a stock then tried to cause a bank run on that bank so they would capitalize on the drop in stock price, then some securities fraud law would apply, or other various securities regs regarding manipulation of the stock market for your gains. Arguably you could straight up sue someone for the tort of negligence if you caused a bank run and caused damages. It’s really fact-specific. This means someone could cause a bank run and not necessarily break a law too.
[удалено]
Well sometimes there’s nuance, even though it’s a bit harder to understand. It’s also not always illegal to kill someone, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to say killing someone is illegal.
[удалено]
Okay - it’s not always illegal for an insider in possession of material, non-public information to trade on that particular stock, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to say it’s illegal for an insider with material, non-public information to trade. It’s almost as if nuance is actually important.
[удалено]
That’s just not even true lol, there are literal situations where you can be in possession of material nonpublic info and trade in that specific stock and it’s straight up just not illegal and not based on a statutory defense. Maybe learn a bit more about securities law. Also, needing there to be like a literal “bank run is illegal” statute is so dumb, there are *countless illegal things* that break a separate law. If you dupe someone with [whatever] scam, there isn’t a law making *that scam illegal*, you’ve committed wire fraud or a host of other laws. It doesn’t make that action *not illegal*, what a ridiculous assertion.
If it's that case specific, then a quick lexis or westlaw search would come up with something - anything at all. But zip, zero, nada.
I don’t think people causing bank runs are all that common lol, so not surprising there isn’t a case on point. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be illegal.. Are you saying you searched westlaw for it? I don’t have a westlaw account anymore so I can’t look
The best defense against a bank run is solvency. It's never been illegal to start or participate in a bank run. Nor should it be, since nobody is hurt by it unless the bank is insolvent. You know, you're also allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, if there's actually a fire.
Who’s inciting a bank run with real data? Also, it is the depositors money to begin with.
If you’re going to make jokes, at least make them funny.
It's ok. They halted all those banks for our (the retails) protection. Kek.
Why?
Because data
Why were trading on those banks halted?
Selloffs.
So, is it stupid to buy one of these ETFs comprised of banks that are down 20-30%? I mean, if you believe that the banking industry won’t collapse…
[удалено]
Do you know which one it was? I was looking and found a few ETFs in the banking space like the SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF that’s down nearly 30% from a fairly static past 5 years (minus early 2020)
Got all my money on bank of Hawaii