Bales, bales and more bales. That is, SVB.
It is impressive to see how the journalistic world (all today's newspapers are owned by groups that also deal with finance) is rushing to the rescue of bankers, too worried about staying with the match in hand. Because it's not a banking crisis: it's an industrial collapse . And we know very well that, as in the case of the credit crunch, banks will no longer lend to each other before knowing how much VC/Startup paper the other bank has in its stomach
Before starting by pointing out the cringe, I would like to point out who we are talking about. These are newspapers that make Cringe-Liberalism, that liberalism for which a journalist who is screwed into his post by fascist legislation and by the order of journalists can write articles in columns such as "Merit and Rules". That liberalism that preaches comfortable pigs.
Many of this newspaper's journalists have also worked for newspapers such as the Financial Times. For those who have never read it, it is a newspaper in which they find it " scandalous" that people in Europe have a month's paid vacation, and they even find it immoral that there are universal health systems.
Essentially, it is a question of a humanity that I define as "pigs without a conscience", or a swine rather than a humanity. They may be wearing a tie that costs as much as my house, and still have my contempt, as spiritually inferior beings.
Almost all vaguely interested words come, that is, from newspapers of that type.
Let's start the Disgustorama Tour here:
According to this person, banks should be saved more than hospitals as "financial infrastructure". It is not clear why a financial infrastructure is more important than a hospital, given that, by the journalist's own admission, the business of other people rests on the business of banks, and since business rests on business, and the banks are financial institution, between a hospital and a bank you choose to save a bank. Non sequetur.
No. There is no logical reason why a bank should be preferred to a hospital. And the fact that they are "financial infrastructure" doesn't change anything. An infrastructure must be managed to stand and designed not to collapse. Otherwise it's not infrastructure, it's just a catafalque.
I guess the average pig with no conscience can think that makes sense. In my opinion, however, it is a pile of nonsense, which reads like this: we need to save the banks because the owners of these newspapers also have investments in the world of banks, and they don't want to lose money. Ecchisenefotte if the citizen fails to take an exam before a year.
After all, the lie inherent in this "learned disquisition" is simple: 260 billion, in the American economy, is too small a figure to be a problem for the financial infrastructure.
While we wonder how Daniele Manca looks in the mirror in the morning, we notice other gems.
Where do we start? First, the first Balla Blatant is that the bank will not be "saved" at all: the procedure is to take what's left and throw it into a new bank, the usual bad bad bank and good bank. Then the government will throw money into the "good" bank, up to reassure those who had more than 250,000 dollars in the bank.
The second obvious lie is that in the USA, saving a bank of this size is "an exception to the rule". On the contrary, it is a rule to save them , and if anything, the rip-offs are those like Lehman Brothers, which was eventually taken over by Barclays (for the West) and Nomura (for the Asian side).
But the third lie, even more obvious, is that the bank, with only 260 billion in assets, does not have the possibility of dragging the entire banking system with it.
NOBODY IS “SAVING THE BANKING SYSTEM”. AND SVB IS TOO SMALL TO PRESENT A RISK OF MELTDOWN. (UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW YET).
BUT writing is another of those guys who consider it scandalous that in Europe people have holidays and public health. So, we shouldn't be surprised.
Another interesting ploy comes from Sole 24 Ore, which does this:
The attempt to blame others for this collapse is simply ridiculous.
All this makes no sense because SVB had received "special permission" from the US government to be able to breach the Basel III criterion, and that is why it has no liquidity. No body could have foreseen the disaster, because it it deals with stress tests that SVB was not used to doing.
In short, it makes no sense to blame the supervisory bodies for something that happens MAINLY because the bank has received special permission from the government to be in the shit, asking to be able to avoid the obligations of an agreement (Basel III) which aimed precisely at avoiding what it happens.
Everyone knew that SVB had this exemption in Basel III.
Watch what? An exception wanted by the US government because SVB "supported a strategic sector?".
Above this pile of idiots stands a simple fact: it is the collapse of a puppet industrial system built with public money. It's not a financial event, it's an industrial event. In any case, the VC is blocked, until a date to be set.
The crisis will spread wherever someone, to imitate Silicon Valley, has created these "startup incubators", and now will see investor confidence plummet to zero.
Fire runs on the wings of the Internet.