Three banks have failed in less than a week. To prevent further panic, US government officials have stepped in to reduce the deficit. There are real concerns about whether this was the right move – effectively bailing out two poorly run institutions facing highly unregulated problems and allowing a third to collapse – as well as the risk that more banks will fail.
So should you take your money out of your bank and keep it safe under your mattress or in bitcoin? The answer is, if you’re anything like me, the money you have in your checking account is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). up to $250,000, So, no, it’s unlikely that JPMorgan Chase will impress you.
This article is excerpted from The Node, CoinDesk’s daily roundup of the most important stories in blockchain and crypto news. You can subscribe to get the full newspaper here,
Still, many are moving their money into crypto, such as Tatiana Kaufmann, who described the move to CoinDesk on Monday. as an act of protest, Bring in stable coins on one sideCrypto is volatile, making these assets less than ideal currencies if you want to preserve your funds. But they offer “original ownership” – meaning no one else can vie for your deposits.
bitcoin, as many as there are already Said, was born out of an earlier banking crisis. The first block of the blockchain contained a message about bailouts. It was designed to isolate third parties from Internet money by making people responsible for their own keys, in contrast to the highly intertwined private banking sector and public sector.
President Joe Biden has said that American taxpayers will not bear the burden of the relief package and unlike 2008, the architects of this financial crisis will not get any benefit. There are enough responsible actors here to play the blame game, but if you’re like Tatiana, the problem is the system itself.
senior management of Silicon Valley Bank sold shares worth millions of dollars leading to the accident. The only risk management they seem to have done. In 2015, SVB chief executive Greg Baker said that institutions such as the SVB “systemic risk not present” Testifying before Congress about the plan to deregulate banking that was implemented in 2018.
svb essentially made a bet That interest rates will stay near zero forever. Over the years, it took deposits from a tech industry that was booming thanks to historically low rates. venture capital financing Worth the risk for many investors. In an effort to get the most out of those deposits, SVB invests most of its money in long term, fixed rate interest investment,
Federal Reserve, as my colleague David Z. Morris wrote, essentially created the foundation of a tech hype cycle through financial engineering to stimulate the economy, and threw the frying pan into ice water when things got too hot. The recent interest rate hike was not necessarily unexpected, but Fed’s inconsistent messaging – Saying that rate hikes were unthinkable until they were – didn’t help the situation.
Venture capitalists such as Peter Thiel helped accelerate SVB’s sizable growth, and its rapid collapse. Thiel is reportedly a believer giardian mimicry, which explains why groups of humans anticipate our relentless pursuit of irrational decisions and scapegoats. Tech leaders have said that SVB has evolved from a feedback loop that has made it a go-to place for startups to banks.
At the same time, a similar social mobility spurred by chat groups and social media led to a downward move. Some even put CoinDesk writer Byron Hobart at the center of things, as he reportedly wrote SVB is saying last month’s read blog was effectively bankrupt. And so depositors like Roku, which uninsured nearly $487 million in SVB, are not innocent.
Politicians who, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is using the situation to justify his pet cause, once promised us “No More Bailouts,” yet wrote rules that allow SVB to use a little accounting magic and hide billions in unrealized losses. Some, like former Representative Barney Frank, said that Signature Bank, where he is now a board member, was attacked for political reasons because it dealt with crypto.
He co-sponsored and eventually enacted legislation when Frank was in Congress. 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, Interrupted bank failures. Signature had reportedly experienced the worst of its bank run and could have survived without government intervention, Frank said. If moral hazard is the argument that people will engage in risky behavior if they are protected from the consequences of their actions, then we need a new term for Frank’s claims.
See also: Why Stablecoin USDC’s Volatile Weekend Matters , Learn
There were solid arguments for stepping in and preventing a devastating blow to the valuable US tech industry. Taxpayers money is not being used (at least not directly), deposits are being secured for growing businesses, shareholders and bondholders are not being bailed out and even the New York Times is SVB’s executive Is demanding compensation and a cut in the sale of stock.
And, yes, there are sound arguments in favor of letting Silicon Valley Bank and Signature run their course. The expected losses were almost certainly exaggerated. A sound startup could raise equity and take up banking elsewhere, and it could bring the fear of God back into the supposedly capitalist American economy.
But not bailing out SVB and signing out was never an option. Bank failures are very rare today and would cause tremendous panic, as the collapse of Silvergate Bank – essentially a free-floating entity separate from the wider economy – led here. And because SVB and Signature ride both up and down the wave of cheap money created by Fed policy, how far apart can private and public interests really be?
So, if the US government is officially in the business of bailing out the banks, should you keep your money in the bank?
The views and opinions expressed here are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.