Not your keys, Not your Money...

"Never Seen In Over 40 Years" - SVB Collapse Sparks Bank Runs As People Wait In Lines https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1634670618095534080 https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1634586029331042310 https://unusualwhales.com/news/numerous-corporate-executives-sold-silicon-va... Before the collapse, executives sold shares. Gregory Becker, CEO, sold 11% on Feb 27, 2023. Michael Zucker, Counsel, 19% on Feb 5. Daniel Beck, CFO, 32% on Feb 27. Michelle Draper, CMO, 25% on Feb 1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03/12/silicon-valley-bank-depo... https://twitter.com/SchreckReports/status/1634947746724724738 https://twitter.com/LawrenceLepard/status/1634275111204421632 https://twitter.com/marcfriedrich7/status/1634427782003343361 https://twitter.com/Dr_PhillipB/status/1634632068058722304 https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1634771851514900480 https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1634662286844411904 https://twitter.com/BobEUnlimited/status/1634539450557505537 https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1634673235982680065 Thousands of companies will fold or lay people off next week because of lack of access to accounts through no fault of their own. (1) Startup Extinction Event - thousands of startups and small businesses won’t be able to make payroll and will immediately need to furlow or layoff employees if the FDIC does not release... Current List of Known Companies With Silicon Valley Bank, $SIVB, Deposits: 1. Circle: $3.3 billion 2. Roku: $487 million 3. BlockFi: $227 million 4. Roblox: $150 million 5. Ginkgo Bio: $74 million 6. iRhythm: $55 million 7. Rocket Lab: $38 million 8. Sangamo Therapeutics: $34 million Friday morning's seizure of Silicon Valley Bank by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) underscores the banking sector's vulnerability, exposing the Federal Reserve's lack of foresight in combating inflation through aggressive interest rate hikes that have caused regional banks to crumble. As venture capitalists and others with inside knowledge panicked and withdrew a staggering $42 billion in deposits before SVB's collapse, an old-fashioned bank run reminiscent of the one in the classic 1946 film "It's a Wonderful Life" has ensued, involving ordinary people. Let's go down memory lane and revisit the bank run scene from the movie. The velocity at which elite investors and depositors removed $42 billion from SVB on Thursday is truly impressive, causing the most significant US bank failure since the financial crisis just one day later. Unfortunately, small banking clients had insufficient time to withdraw their funds, leaving their unsecured deposits likely lost, and the FDIC only provides protection for deposits of up to $250,000. This is what a digital era bank run looks like https://t.co/s7Ex17Dk84 — Ben Schreckinger (@SchreckReports) March 12, 2023 On Saturday, just like the bank run scene from It's a Wonderful Life, images and videos surfaced on social media of people lined up outside SVB branches and other SVB-exposed banks, trying to panic-withdraw as much money as they could. Shades of 1930’s. This is my bank in Wellesley this morning. Boston Private Bank, recently acquired by Silicon Valley Bank. Ruh, roh. pic.twitter.com/MAD46ozShx — Lawrence Lepard, "fix the money, fix the world" (@LawrenceLepard) March 10, 2023 Bankrun in the US #SVB pic.twitter.com/HbMmR2dLge — marc friedrich (@marcfriedrich7) March 11, 2023 I’ve never seen a bank run in Brentwood Los Angeles in over 40 years — this is at first republic bank branch. People standing in rain pic.twitter.com/k31PqqpyO3 — pjb.eth (@Dr_PhillipB) March 11, 2023 On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said banking regulators are working to resolve failed SVB with a focus on depositors but didn't elaborate on details. Yellen told CBS's "Face the Nation" that despite SVB's collapse, the US banking system remains safe, well-capitalized, and resilient. She said officials are "working to address this situation in a timely way." Meanwhile, as Jason Calacanis writes, this might be the beginning. ON MONDAY 100,000 AMERICANS WILL BE LINED UP AT THEIR REGIONAL BANK DEMANDING THEIR MONEY — MOST WILL NOT GET IT THIS WENT FROM SILICON VALLEY INSIDERS ON THURSDAY TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ON SATURDAY — MAIN STREET FINDS OUT MONDAY — @jason (@Jason) March 12, 2023 The question we posted yesterday to premium subs: "Was Silicon Valley Bank Really Unique, And Who Is Next." And while all US banks parked some part of their money in Treasuries and other bonds that dropped in value last year thanks to the Fed's fastest rate hiking campaign since Volcker, SVB took it to an entirely new level: as Bloomberg notes, SIVB's investment portfolio swelled to 57% of its total assets. As the chart below shows, no other competitor among 74 major US banks had more than 42%. As fear spreads this weekend, even more people will likely be lining up in front of these regional banks on Monday morning. ... and Monday it is. From a source I trust: @SVB_Financial depositors will get ~50% on Mon/Tues and the balance based on realized value over the next 3-6 months. If this proves true, I expect there will be bank runs beginning Monday am at a large number of non-SIB banks. No company will take even a… https://t.co/2BoqtCDKJt — Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) March 11, 2023 Chris Bakke @ChrisJBakke This is it, folks. Absolutely insane lines today. Unprecedented run on Starbucks points. Saw several people redeeming their points for free coffees. One man redeemed for TWO breakfast sandwiches. Manager said they may run out of sandwiches today.

Not your keys, Not your Money...

US small, regional, internet banks down ~20-30% / 52wkhi US large banks and financials down ~15-20% / 52wkhi "This Should Scare The Hell Out Of Bankers & Regulators Worldwide" https://www.ft.com/content/b556badb-8e98-42fa-b88e-6e7e0ca758b8 https://twitter.com/biancoresearch/status/1634885127179325440 https://twitter.com/biancoresearch/status/1634329593124618240 https://twitter.com/biancoresearch/status/1634329594328391680

From "everyday joes" to the corporate CFOs, men, women, and others, are frantically battling a prisoner's dilemma about their banking relationship this weekend: "I’m fine if they don’t draw their money, and they’re fine if I don’t draw mine..."

But, given the lines outside banks and less than reassuring sentiment from Washington, we suspect it is too late and the that dilemma is over - now it's every man, woman, and child for themselves. As The FT report on one CFOs decision-tree: “I got a text from another friend - he was definitely moving his money to JPMorgan. It was happening,” the finance chief said. “The social contract that we might have collectively had was too fragile. I called our CEO and we wired 97 per cent of our deposits to HSBC by midday on Thursday.” And as explained below, the new normal 'bank run' is instant, huge, and devastating. Given that there are many 'bad' (read: biased and/or uninformed) takes on the situation at SVB, Bianco Research's founder and President, Jim Bianco, tried to clarify in a brief Twitter thread: This is not a solvency crisis like 2008. Bad loans or poor investments were not made. Money was not lost. So, everyone is going to get their money back. (And please no takes about no interest rate hedging. Asset/liability mismatches are how banking works.) [We agree broadly but do worry, as we detailed on Thursday, about the CRE/office exposure overhang on small banks and how higher rates will actually translate to actual loan losses, not just HTM "temporary" losses.] Instead this is an old fashion 1930s liquidity crisis. Too many depositors demanded cash at once (as in right now) and SVB (and SI) could not convert loans and securities (and crypto) to cash that quickly. So, everyone is getting their money back from SVB (and SI), just not at 8AM Monday. And, yes this is a big problem as this is working capital for a lot of companies. They have payrolls to meet and vendors to pay next week. And if they don’t pay bills and employees, they in turn don’t pay their bills and this can quickly cascade into a major economic problem. The important question is why so many demanded their money back at once. And I’m not referring to the last two days. I’m asking about the days/weeks leading up to this last two days forcing SVB to sell securities and realize a $1.8B loss, necessitating a capital raise. Why were depositors withdrawing in big enough amounts before Thursday/Friday? First, welcome to the world of mobile banking. Gone are the frictions of standing in line with tellers instructed to count money slowly. (Media images of lines Friday were largely gawkers) Question: How did $42 billion get withdrawn Friday alone without thousands in line? Answer: your phone! This is not the Bailey Savings and Loan anymore. This should scare the hell of bankers and regulators worldwide. The entire $17 trillion deposit base is now on a hair trigger expecting instant liquidity. Add in social media and millions get a message, like Peter Thiel telling Founders companies to pull out, or Senator Warren gloating that SI went under, and pick up their phone open a Chase account and Venmo-ed their life savings into it in 10 minutes. [Once SI died, Warren's dancing on its grave started the dominos falling...] Instant liquidity (not solvency) crisis with everyone still in bed. Banking will never be the same. The second, and I did a long thread on this on Friday... banks are over-reserved, after 14 years of QE, and are still paying 0.50% on accounts when T-bills are yielding 5.00%. They don’t need to compete for deposits. 2/14 Over the past year, banks kept rates on checking/saving accounts extremely low compared to MM funds. The avg yield on a MM (blue) reached as high as 4.43% recently, while bank rates (orange) remained at just 0.48%. The gap was almost 4% (red). pic.twitter.com/96PwaEpsrx — Jim Bianco biancoresearch.eth (@biancoresearch) March 10, 2023 Initially as rates passed 2%, 3% and 4%, the public did not notice. So bankers thought deposits were well anchored at their bank and not moving regardless of the interest rate paid. But at 5% the public finally noticed, and millions reached for the phone at once and transferred to a money market account or Treasury direct to buy T-bills. Banks were squeezed to convert loans and securities to cash instantly so depositors could leave for better rates. Add in the bleed out from tech firms struggling, and Senator Warrens tweeting with glee about SI going out of business, and depositors at SVB got the message and picked up their phones and acted. This is why I have been tweeting that this has to stop now. The Fed is meeting Monday at 11:30. Too late! They need to meet today (Sunday) at 11:30. What needs to be done? Two things. The FDIC needs to raise the deposit insurance ceiling to unlimited as they did this in 2008. Besides $250k is a made up number anyway. So make up a bigger number. Banks need to get their deposit base to stop figuring out how to buy a 4.5% money market fund. They need to raise the interest rates they pay 3.00% - 3.50%, from 0.50%, immediately. Yes, this will kill bank profitability so expect Bank Execs to balk at doing this. This way the public gets the message that you money is safe, no matter the bank, or the amount, and the rate paid on your money is at least competitive with other alternatives. Otherwise, if they do nothing and wait for the Fed to START a meeting at 11:30 Monday, hundreds of billions of deposits will have moved by phone and it will be far worse.

Not your keys, Not your Money...

Yellen Says Government Will Help SVB Depositors But "No Bailout" As Fed, FDIC "Hope" Talk Of Special Vehicle Prevents More Bank Runs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-12/us-discusses-fund-to-back... With just hours left until futures open for trading late on Sunday afternoon, the situation remains extremely fluid and for now it appears that regulators, central bankers and treasury officials (we won't mention the White House where the most competent financial advisor is Hunter Biden) still don't have a clear idea of how they will coordinate or respond. Take Janet Yellen, who said on Sunday morning that the US government was working closely with banking regulators to help depositors at Silicon Valley Bank but dismissed the idea of a bailout. Speaking with CBS on Sunday, the treasury secretary sought to assure US customers of the failed tech lender that policies were being discussed to stem the fallout from the sudden collapse this week. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporate (FDIC) took control of the bank on Friday morning. “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” Yellen said (oh but you will, you just don't know it yet). “But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.” It wasn't clear which depositors she meant: as we first pointed out on Friday, out of SIVB’s $173 billion of customer deposits at the end of 2022, $152 billion were uninsured (i.e., over the $250,000 FDIC insurance threshold) and only $4.8 billion were fully insured. As we also noted last week, a further look at SIVB funding (pie charts) shows unusually high reliance on corporate/VC funding; only the small red private bank slice looks like traditional retail deposits to us. As a result, as JPM's Michael Cembalest says "It’s fair to ask about the underwriting discipline of VC firms that put most of their liquidity in a single bank with this kind of risk profile. At the end of 2022, SIVB only offered 0.60% more on deposits than its peers as compensation for the risks illustrated below; in 2021 this premium was 0.04%". Meanwhile, late last night, Bloomberg reported that the FDIC and the Fed are "weighing creating a fund that would allow regulators to backstop more deposits at banks that run into trouble following Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse." According to the report which cites people familiar with the matter, "regulators discussed the new special vehicle in conversations with banking executives." And here the punchline: The hope is that setting up such a vehicle would reassure depositors and help contain any panic, said the people. They asked not to be identified because the talks weren’t public. Well, needless to say, any time one mentions "hope" as a wise macroprudential policy, alarms go off, because the entire banking system suddenly becomes reduced to a game of chicken as follows: Fed/regulators won't backstop deposits today and won't admit a bank crisis is emerging, but if a bank crisis emerges and there is a flight of deposits on Monday morning, they will move. But then it will be far too late as once a bank run has started it is virtually impossible to stop it under controlled circumstances and is why the number one prerogative for regulators is to avoid just this kind of outcome, which is catastrophic for a fractional reserve system that is entirely based on confidence, and where available "demand money" is merely a fraction of the $18 trillion in deposits, far more than the $2.2 trillion in circulating currency. Furthermore, a quick look at historical unsecured depositor impairment numbers show that losses imposed on uninsured depositors range between 6% and 65%: huge numbers in today's context even assuming that banks are mostly solvent (which they likely won't be once the commercial real estate crisis hurricane hits). Meanwhile, as Jason Calacanis writes, this is just the beginning. ON MONDAY 100,000 AMERICANS WILL BE LINED UP AT THEIR REGIONAL BANK DEMANDING THEIR MONEY — MOST WILL NOT GET IT THIS WENT FROM SILICON VALLEY INSIDERS ON THURSDAY TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ON SATURDAY — MAIN STREET FINDS OUT MONDAY — @jason (@Jason) March 12, 2023 And while he may be conflicted - he certainly has some material losses as a result of the SVB failure - one look at what is already taking place at some smaller, vulnerable banks such as this First Republic Branch in Brentwood should be sufficient to see what comes tomorrow if the Fed makes the wrong decision today. I’ve never seen a bank run in Brentwood Los Angeles in over 40 years — this is at first republic bank branch. People standing in rain pic.twitter.com/k31PqqpyO3 — pjb.eth (@Dr_PhillipB) March 11, 2023 The flipside to all this is that the longer the Fed waits to assure depositors - even uninsured depositors - that they are safe, the more firepower (bailout funds, TARP 2.0, rate cuts, QE) it will have to deploy much sooner than anyone previously expected as the crisis spirals out of control.

Not your keys, Not your Money...

Crypto +14% and rising... Home Depot Founder Tells Americans To "Wake Up" After Silicon Valley Bank Collapse https://www.theepochtimes.com/home-depot-founder-asks-americans-to-wake-up-a... https://www.foxnews.com/media/home-depot-co-founder-torches-woke-silicon-val... https://www.theepochtimes.com/silicon-valley-bank-fails-fdic-steps-in-to-pro... https://www.svb.com/news/company-news/silicon-valley-bank-commits-to-$5-bill... https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1634747902319906816 https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1634672334656225281 Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus asked Americans to “wake up” to the reality that the U.S. economy is in “tough times,” following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). “I can’t wait for [President Joe] Biden to get on the speech again and talk about how great the economy is and how it’s moving forward and getting stronger by the day. And this is an indication that whatever he says is not true,” Marcus told Fox News on March 11. Marcus added, “And maybe the American people will finally wake up and understand that we’re living in very tough times, that, in fact, that a recession may have already started. Who knows? But it doesn’t look good.” Silicon Valley Bank, the nation’s 16th largest bank with about $209 billion in total assets, collapsed on March 10, after depositors rushed to withdraw money over concerns of the bank’s solvency. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has now assumed control of the bank. The collapse of the California bank was the second biggest bank failure in U.S. history since Washington Mutual during the 2008 financial crisis. On Saturday, a White House statement said Biden has spoken to California Gov. Gavin Newsom on the bank’s failure. Newsom also issued a statement saying he had been in touch with “the highest levels of leadership at the White House and Treasury.” ‘Woke’ Marcus attributed the bank’s failure to its decisions to adopt “woke” policies. “I feel bad for all of these people that lost all their money in this woke bank. You know, it was more distressing to hear that the bank officials sold off their stock before this happened. It’s depressing to me,” Marcus said. “Who knows whether the Justice Department would go after them? They’re a woke company, so I guess not. And they’ll probably get away with it.” According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Greg Becker, CEO of Silicon Valley Bank, sold 12,451 shares of the bank’s parent company SVB Financial Group on Feb. 27. SVB announced in January 2022 that it was committed to providing at least $5 billion in loans, investments, and other financings by 2027, to support companies “that are working to decarbonize the energy and infrastructure industries and hasten the transition to a sustainable, net zero emissions economy.” Marcus blamed the Biden administration for pushing banks and companies into being “more concerned about global warming” than shareholder returns. “These banks are badly run because everybody is focused on diversity and all of the woke issues and not concentrating on the one thing they should, which is shareholder returns,” he said. “Instead of protecting the shareholders and their employees, they are more concerned about the social policies. And I think it’s probably a badly run bank. “They’ve been there for a lot of years. It’s pathetic that so many people lost money that won’t get it back.” Responses Several California lawmakers have shared their concerns about the bank’s failure on Twitter. “If regulators do not act quickly, the Silicon Valley Bank collapse will have widespread ramifications for small businesses, start-ups, and nonprofits trying to make payroll–as well as on our broader economy,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote. Padilla added that he had been in contact with officials from the administration and the Treasury Department to ensure a quick resolution. “Deeply troubled by SVB’s collapse & uncertainty it’s caused. I’m hearing from workers in my district concerned when they’ll be paid & if they’ll be laid off,” Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) wrote. “Regulators must give urgent clarity to depositors to prevent panic. Vigorous action is needed to protect account holders.” Republican presidential hopefuls—Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy—both said on Twitter that a bailout is not the resolution. “Taxpayers should absolutely not bail out Silicon Valley Bank,” Haley wrote. “Private investors can purchase the bank and its assets. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to step in.” The former South Carolina governor added, “The era of big government and corporate bailouts must end.” “The right answer isn’t a bailout. It’s to get the government out of the way and let another bank acquire SVB if that’s what they actually want to do,” Ramaswamy wrote. Ramaswamy, a biotechnology entrepreneur, is the author of “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam.”

A fifth bank collapses... 11 hours remain until the USA implodes... Crypto has surged up over 16% since Friday... Fed Panics: Signature Bank Closed By Regulators; Fed, TSY, FDIC Announce Another Banking System Bailout https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.ht... https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 6:20pm ET Update: Panic is finally here. On Friday, we said that the Fed will have to make an announcement before the Monday open, and we didn't have to wait that long: in fact, the Fed waited just 15 minutes after futures opened for trading to announce the new bailout, alongside even more shocking news: the Treasury announced that New York State regulators are shuttering Signature Bank - a major New York bank - adding that all depositors both at Signature Bank, and also the now insolvent Silicon Valley Bank, will have access to their money on Monday. And as we process the shock of yet another small bank failure (which makes JPMorgan even bigger), the Fed just issued a statement saying that "to support American businesses and households, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors. This action will bolster the capacity of the banking system to safeguard deposits and ensure the ongoing provision of money and credit to the economy." The Fed also said that it is prepared to address any liquidity pressures that may arise, which in turn has just unveiled the first bailout acronym of the new crisis: the Bank Term Funding Program, or BTFP. Some more details: The financing will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress. The Fed explains that the Department of the Treasury will make available "up to $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the BTFP." And while the Federal Reserve - which was completely clueless about this banking crisis until Thursday - does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds, we anticipate that the final number of needed backstop liquidity be somewhere north of $2 trillion. What is more notable is that the BTFP - or Buy The Fucking Pivot - facility, will pledge collateral at par, not at market value, thus giving banks credit for all those hundreds of billions in unrealized net losses, and allowing banks to "unlock liquidity" based on losses which the Fed and TSY now backstop! More from the Fed statement: After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary Yellen, after consultation with the President, approved actions to enable the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank in a manner that fully protects all depositors, both insured and uninsured. These actions will reduce stress across the financial system, support financial stability and minimize any impact on businesses, households, taxpayers, and the broader economy. The Board is carefully monitoring developments in financial markets. The capital and liquidity positions of the U.S. banking system are strong and the U.S. financial system is resilient. Depository institutions may obtain liquidity against a wide range of collateral through the discount window, which remains open and available. In addition, the discount window will apply the same margins used for the securities eligible for the BTFP, further increasing lendable value at the window. The Board is closely monitoring conditions across the financial system and is prepared to use its full range of tools to support households and businesses, and will take additional steps as appropriate. But wait, there's more: concurrently with the Fed's statement, the Treasury also issued a joint statement with the Fed and FDIC in which Powell, Yellen and Gruenberg all said that they are "taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system. This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth." Additionally, the trio announced that all depositors at Silicon Valley Bank will be bailed out, as will the depositors of New York's Signature Bank, which has just failed as well, and whose depositors will be made whole after invoking a "systemic risk exception" After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer. We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer. While depositors are safe, creditors and equity holders are not: Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors. The conclusion: The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors’ savings remain safe. Translation: the Fed's hiking cycle is dead and buried, and here comes the next round of massive liquidity injections. It also means that the Fed, Treasury and FDIC have just experienced the most devastating humiliation in recent history - just 4 days ago Powell was telling Congress he could hike 50bps and here we are now using taxpayer funds to bail out banks that have collapsed because they couldn't even handle 4.75% and somehow the Fed has no idea! To summarize: Signature Bank has been closed All depositors of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank will be fully protected Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected New Fed 13(3) facility announced with $25 billion from ESF to backstop bank deposits As we said earlier on twitter, "this is a regulatory failure of historic proportions by both the Fed and Treasury. Instead of preventing billions in losses, the Fed was worrying about board diversity and Yellen was flying to Ukraine. Everyone should be sacked immediately." This is a regulatory failure of historic proportions by both the Fed and Treasury. Instead of preventing billions in losses, the Fed was worrying about board diversity and Yellen was flying to Ukraine. Everyone should be sacked immediately. https://t.co/XDd5LTI6hF — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 12, 2023 Oh, and if the Fed really thinks that $25 billion from the ESF will be enough to backstop a bank run on $18 trillion of deposits... ... we wish them the best of luck. * * * 6:10pm ET Update: Futures have opened for trading sharply higher, with bitcoin and precious metals also spiking amid rising expectations of either some sort of bank system bailout/backstop or, more likely, an end to the Fed's hiking cycle. Echoing what the WaPo reported in an earlier trial balloon, Bloomberg writes that the Fed and the Treasury Department are preparing emergency measures to shore up banks and ensure they can meet potential demands by their customers to withdraw money. As reported earlier, the Fed is planning to "ease the terms" of banks’ access to its discount window, giving firms a way to turn assets that have lost value into cash without the kind of losses that toppled SVB’s Silicon Valley Bank (as we noted earlier, the access to the Discoint Window was never an issue, what was is the stigma associated with using it and the likelihood that depositors will flee the moment it becomes public). Additionally, the Fed and Treasury are also preparing a program to backstop deposits using the Fed’s emergency lending authority. The use of the Fed’s emergency lending authority is for “unusual and exigent” circumstances, and signals that US regulators view the spillovers from SVB’s collapse as a sign of systemic risk in markets. Bloomberg adds that the FDIC will need to declare a system risk exception in order to insure the uninsured depositors, but we doubt that will be an issue. The emergency lending facility is a Depression-era statute in the Federal Reserve Act that allows the central bank to make loans directly. The Fed is required to establish that borrowers were unable to obtain liquidity elsewhere. Using the emergency authority requires a vote by the Fed’s board and approval from the Treasury secretary. Meanwhile, as reported previously, some banks began drawing on the discount window Friday, seeking to shore up liquidity in a panicked frenzy as widespread liquidations on Friday saw many regional banks lose as much as half of their market cap before recovering. Amid speculation of yet another taxpayer funded bailout - and a guaranteed end to the Fed's rate hikes and potential return of QE - stock futures jumped above 3900... .... with gold and bitcoin surging too. * * * 4:30pm ET Update: It's getting to the point where every new "proposal" or "idea" being thrown about is worse than the previous one (or maybe this is just how the clueless LGBTQ equity-focused Fed is doing trial balloons on a Sunday afternoon. Shortly after the WaPo reported that the Fed is "seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank", BBG is out with a report that the Federal Reserve is also "considering easing the terms of banks’ access to its discount window, giving firms a way to turn assets that have lost value into cash without the kind of losses that toppled SVB Financial Group." Such a move would increase the ability of banks to keep up with demands from depositors to withdraw, without having to book losses by selling bonds and other assets that have deteriorated in value amid interest-rate increases — the dynamic that caused SVB to collapse on Friday. The report goes on to note that as many had expected, some banks began drawing on the discount window Friday, seeking to shore up liquidity after authorities seized SVB’s Silicon Valley Bank, which is precisely why it is bizarre that this is even news: after all, the Discount Window has always been opened, and the fact that banks hate to use it has nothing to do with "ease of access" and all to do with the stigma of being associated with the discount window. Just recall how banks that were revealed to have used the discount window around Lehman's failure saw accelerating bank runs. Or maybe the Fed's thinking goes that while it would be too late to save SIVB, other banks would somehow boost confidence of their depositors by yelling from the rooftops: "Hey, look at us, we are well capitalized: we just borrowed $X billion from the Fed's Discount Window." Needless to say, the mere rumor that regional bank XYZ has been forced to access this "last ditch" funding facility will result in all its depositors fleeing, which is why we once again ask: after "fixing" Ukraine's Burisma, is that polymath genius Hunter Biden now in charge of US bank bailout policy? "Hey, let's stuff all the regional banks into the stigmatizing facility that accelerated the global financial crisis" - Hunter Biden https://t.co/HM2PBiztDG — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 12, 2023 * * * 3:00pm ET Update: In a reversal of what Janet Yellen said just hours ago, WaPo reports that federal authorities are "seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank" - and by extension any other bank on the verge of failure - and are weighing an extraordinary intervention to prevent what they fear would be a panic in the U.S. financial system. Translation: bailout of all depositors, not just those guaranteed by the the FDIC (<$250K). Officials at the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discussed the idea this weekend, the people said, with only hours to go before financial markets opened in Asia. White House officials have also studied the idea, per two separate people familiar with those discussions. The plan would be among the potential policy responses if the government is unable to find a buyer for the failed bank. While selling SVB to a healthy institution remains the preferred solution - as most bank failures are resolved that way and enable depositors to avoid losing any money - there have been several reports that no big bank has stepped up as of yet, leaving the government/Fed as the only option. As reported earlier, the FDIC began an auction process for SVB on Saturday and hoped to identify a winning bidder Sunday afternoon, with final bids due at 2 p.m. ET. Some more from the WaPo report: Although the FDIC insures bank deposits up to $250,000, a provision in federal banking law may give them the authority to protect the uninsured deposits as well if they conclude that failing to do so would pose a systemic risk to the broader financial system, the people said. In that event, uninsured deposits could be backstopped by an insurance fund, paid into regularly by U.S. banks. Before that happens, the systemic risk verdict must be endorsed by a two-thirds vote of the Fed's Board of Governors and the FDIC board along with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. No final decision has been made, but the deliberations reflect concern over the collateral damage from SVB's collapse and authorities' struggle to respond amid limits on their powers implemented following the 2008 financial bailouts. "We've been hearing from those depositors and other concerned people this weekend. So let me say that I've been working all weekend with our banking regulators to design appropriate policies to address this situation," Yellen said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." But more importantly, the WaPo report contradicts what Yellen said just a few hours earlier, namely that "during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” This suggests that in just a few short hours, officials and regulators peaked behind the scenes and realized just how bad a potential bad crisis could be and have made a 1800 degree U turn. The result: any erroneous higherer for longerer narrative spewed by some self-appointed experts has just blown up, and what is about to be unleashed is another vast liquidity wave, something that bitcoin clearly is starting to anticipate. * * * 1:15pm ET Update: In a throwback to the legendary "Lehman Sunday", when dozens of credit traders did an ad hoc CDS trading and novation session on the Sunday ahead of the bank's Chapter 11 filing to minimize the chaos and fallout from the coming bankruptcy, Bloomberg reports that the FDIC kicked off an auction process late Saturday for Silicon Valley Bank, with final bids due by Sunday afternoon. The FDIC is reportedly aiming for "a swift deal" but a winner may not be known until late Sunday. Bloomberg also reported that the regulator is racing to sell assets and make a portion of clients’ uninsured deposits available as soon as Monday; the open questions are i) whether there will be a haircut and ii) how big it will be. A table from JPM's Michael Cemablest below shows historical haircuts on uninsured depositors in previous bank crises. We get a slightly more positive vibe from a Reuters report according to which "authorities are preparing "material action" on Sunday to shore up deposits in Silicon Valley Bank and stem any broader financial fallout from its sudden collapse." Details of the announcement expected on Sunday were not immediately available. One source said the Federal Reserve had acted to keep banks operating during the COVID-19 pandemic, and could take similar action now. "This will be a material action, not just words," one source said. Earlier, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that she was working with banking regulators to respond after SVB became the largest bank to fail since the 2008 financial crisis. As fears deepened of a broader fallout across the U.S. regional banking sector and beyond, Yellen said she was working to protect depositors but ruled out a bailout. "We want to make sure that the troubles that exist at one bank don't create contagion to others that are sound," Yellen told the CBS News Sunday Morning show. "During the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out ... and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again," Yellen added. Meanwhile, more than 3,500 CEOs and founders representing some 220,000 workers signed a petition started by Y Combinator appealing directly to Yellen and others to backstop depositors, warning that more than 100,000 jobs could be at risk. Reuters also reports that the FDIC was trying to find another bank willing to merge with SVB: "Some industry executives said such a deal would be sizeable for any bank and would likely require regulators to give special guarantees and make other allowances." That said, the longer we wait without some resolution the more likely it is that SVB's unsecured depositors will get pennies on the dollar, according to the following (unconfirmed) reporting from Chalie Gasparino: "Bankers increasingly pessimistic a single buyer will emerge for SVB, laying out options for clients w money in there: 1-ride it out. 2-sell deposits for around 70-80 cents on dollar to other financial players; borrow against deposits jpmorgan at 50 cents on dollar." BREAKING: Bankers increasingly pessimistic a single buyer will emerge for SVB, laying out options for clients w money in there: 1-ride it out. 2-sell deposits for around 70-80 cents on dollar to other financial players; borrow against deposits @jpmorgan at 50 cents on dollar — Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) March 12, 2023 The FDIC previously said the agency has said it will make 100% of protected deposits available on Monday, when Silicon Valley Bank branches reopen. There was also news for those whose money remains frozen at SIVB. BBG notes that tech lender Liquidity Group is planning to offer about $3 billion in emergency loans to start-up clients hit by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. Liquidity has about $1.2 billion ready in cash to make available in the coming weeks, Chief Executive Officer and co-founder Ron Daniel said in an interview on Sunday. The group is also in discussions with its funding partners, including Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. and Apollo Global Management Inc., to offer an additional $2 billion in loans, he said. “By helping the companies to survive now, I’m hoping some of them would succeed and come back to us in the future,” Daniel said. “We’re nurturing our future clients.” A typical loan will be a one-year facility of $1 million to $10 million, or as much as 30% of the balances held with SVB, Daniel said. The priority is to help companies meet payroll expenses. The fate of other SVB-linked entities appears to be somewhat rosier. Bloomberg reports that Royal Group, an investment firm controlled by a top Abu Dhabi royal, is considering a possible takeover of the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank following its collapse last week, according to people familiar with the matter. The conglomerate, chaired by United Arab Emirates National Security Adviser Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is discussing a potential buy-out through one of its subsidiaries.

...

A fifth bank collapses...

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks. -- The Genesis Block, by Satoshi Nakamoto"

Crypto rockets up 25% on the news... Democrats never ever demand to cut spending, taxes, or money printing. The Bank Crisis Has Democrats Scrambling Behind The Scenes To Find A Scapegoat Democratic representatives are scrambling in the wake of the potentially contagious Silicon Valley Bank implosion, looking for a way to divert attention away from them should the crisis expand. One avenue for scapegoating the event that has been suggested among Dems and the media is to blame a 2018 law that eased Dodd-Frank capital requirements for midsize and small banks. Republicans led the effort to pass the law, which President Donald Trump signed, but 33 House Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats also voted for it. No mention, of course, of the cancerous exposure SVB had to numerous woke investments through venture capital, including money losing ESG related projects, climate change-based companies and World Economic Forum stakeholder capitalism projects. The Dems have found their narrative, which is an old narrative: “The conservatives did it.” What Democrats do not seem to understand is that the easing of Dodd-Frank capital requirements was in direct response to the Federal Reserve's announced plan to tighten liquidity and raise interest rates through 2018. With more expensive credit and a shrinking Fed balance sheet, reducing requirements for bank buffers was one of the few ways to prevent the stimulus addicted lending sector from plummeting. The extra capital also allowed banks to continue lending to companies that engage in stock buybacks, keeping stock markets afloat. With a larger capital buffer even more liquidity dries up, revealing the true economic weakness underneath that Dems have denied for the past few years. So, if Biden and the Dems get what they want (more strict capital requirements for banks), then there will be an even swifter collapse of markets and the overall economy due to lack of liquidity. By the end of 2018, markets began to plunge anyway under the strain of higher interest rates, which led to the Fed reversing course, and this seems to be what Democrats are really hoping for. They have called for endless liquidity measures and have consistently demanded lower rates and looser monetary policy. However, when Donald Trump's Administration called for rate cuts during his term, Dems attacked. Once again, when Republicans do it, it's wrong; when they do it, it's good policy. Another issue to consider is that each successive program by the Fed to employ bailouts and QE accelerates the inflation crisis. While both sides of the aisle seem to want helicopter money when they are in power so they can boast about rising stock markets and improved employment, the Dems are now facing a systemic stagflationary event; the same event they originally claimed did not exist. This means that any pursuit of new QE in the face of a credit crunch would lead to an immediate spike in inflation once again, crushing the middle class. Are Democrats willing to accept responsibility for something like that? Not a chance. The Biden Administration has so far taken full credit for the slowdown of consumer inflation as well as the shrinking deficit, but these changes are only due to the tightening actions of the central bank which sets policy independent of the White House. Democrats can't have it both ways – They can't take credit for reduced inflation when the Fed tightens policy against their wishes, and then not take credit for the consequences of higher inflation when they badger the Fed to inject more stimulus. The only recourse for the political left is to somehow lay the blame on conservatives no matter which way the wind blows, inflation or deflation. Emergency congressional hearings have been organized to determine the cause of the SVB crisis and the course of action needed. Democrats including Sen. Sharrod Brown and Rep. Maxine Waters were quick to applaud the backstop initiated by the Fed and the Treasury Department, attempting to calm market concerns and reassure investors and depositors that all is well. Maxine Waters stated that Republicans and Democrats needed to “work together to protect the safety of the financial system", which is likely a thinly veiled assertion that Republicans must support raising the debt ceiling and commit to even more spending. Biden took a slightly different tone, vowing to hold the people who caused the mess responsible, specifically referring to Republicans. Of course, to legitimately hold the true culprits responsible would require that Biden punish himself – As it was the Fed along with the Obama/Biden Administration that launched the ongoing stimulus bonanza in 2008/2009. Obama and Biden doubled the national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the span of a mere eight years. The normalization of fiat money creation to avoid economic consequences has created the very inflationary crisis and banking weakness we are facing today. And, if banks cannot withstand even a moderate rise in interest rates and reduced liquidity because of their addiction to Fed stimulus, then it is fitting if the system crashes under a new Biden regime.

"Barney Frank openly admits that Signature was arbitrarily shuttered despite no insolvency because regulators wanted to kill off the last major pro-crypto bank" https://decrypt.co/123346/signature-bank-shut-down-anti-crypto-barney-frank https://www.theblock.co/post/219391/barney-frank-regulators-shuttered-signat... https://news.bitcoin.com/bank-board-member-and-dodd-frank-co-sponsor-barney-... Barney Frank, a director at Signature Bank which was shut down by the government over the weekend has just said that the bank was shut down to send a message to crypto, and not because they were facing any kind of insolvency. These are shocking revelations as it appears that the US government just killed a legal and solvent bank just because they can, just because didn't approve of pro-crypto stance of the bank. In the process, wiping out shareholders to zero. https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr20230312 https://dfpi.ca.gov/2023/03/10/california-financial-regulator-takes-possessi... https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/signature-bank-third-biggest-bank-failure-in... https://www.youtube.com/live/Qdl53t7AKBo FUD https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/short-seller-who-predicted-f... https://twitter.com/liron/status/1592039990871339008 These are quotes from Frank, who also drafted the Dodd-Frank Act: “I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” said board member and former congressman Barney Frank. For his part, Frank, who helped draft the landmark Dodd-Frank Act after the 2008 financial crisis, said there was “no real objective reason” that Signature had to be seized. “I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank said. “We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.” https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/signature-bank-third-biggest-bank-failure-in... This confirms many people's beliefs that the bank was shut down just because they had a pro-crypto stance, and were facilitating crypto exchanges and stablecoin liquidity using their Signet network, which allowed stablecoins like USDC to obtain banking system liquidity throughout the weekend when other banks were closed. The government's statement said there were "systemic issues" at Signature Bank, and was entirely vague. Compare the vague statement issued by NYDFS on closure of Signature Bank (found here) versus the detailed order passed by California DFPI taking over Silicon Valley Bank (found here). In Silicon Valley Bank's case, California DFPI have specifically found that the bank is insolvent and passed a fact finding order, whereas in Signature bank, the NYDFS statement is totally value with no fact finding order. There was no liquidity issue at Signature bank, but the government used the window of opportunity that arose over the weekend from Silicon Valley Bank's failure, to kill off another bank SBNY which was pro-crypto. As the saying goes, "Never let any crisis go to waste" It now appears that the bank was killed just to shut down crypto access to banking. Shareholders in SBNY have been wiped out to zero as the FDIC took over the bank. The shares were trading at $70 per share at close of trading on friday. Not only the shareholders, even unsecured bond holders of the bank have been wiped out. 606 reasons... (a) Has violated any law; (b) Is conducting its business in an unauthorized or unsafe manner; (c) Is in an unsound or unsafe condition to transact its business; (d) Cannot with safety and expediency continue business; (e) Has an impairment of its capital;  or, in the case of a mutual savings and loan association or credit union, has assets insufficient to pay its debts and the amount due members upon their shares; (f) Has suspended payment of its obligations;  or, in the case of a mutual savings and loan association, has failed for sixty days after a withdrawal application has been filed with it by any shareholder to pay such withdrawal application in full; (g) Has neglected or refused to comply with the terms of a duly issued order of the superintendent; (h) Has refused, upon proper demand, to submit its records and affairs for inspection to an examiner of the department; (i) Has refused to be examined upon oath regarding its affairs. (j) Has neglected, refused or failed to take or continue proceedings for voluntary liquidation in accordance with any of the provisions of this chapter.

Why The Banking System Is Breaking Up by Michael Hudson The collapses of Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank are like icebergs calving off from the Antarctic glacier. The financial analogy to the global warming causing this collapse of supporting shelving is the rising temperature of interest rates, which spiked last Thursday and Friday to close at 4.60 percent for the U.S. Treasury’s two-year bonds. Bank depositors meanwhile were still being paid only 0.2 percent on their deposits. That has led to a steady withdrawal of funds from banks – and a corresponding decline in commercial bank balances with the Federal Reserve. Most media reports reflect a prayer that the bank runs will be localized, as if there is no context or environmental cause. There is general embarrassment to explain how the breakup of banks that is now gaining momentum is the result of the way that the Obama Administration bailed out the banks in 2008 with fifteen years of Quantitative Easing to re-inflate prices for packaged bank mortgages – and with them, housing prices, along with stock and bond prices. The Fed’s $9 trillion of QE (not counted as part of the budget deficit) fueled an asset-price inflation that made trillions of dollars for holders of financial assets – the One Percent with a generous spillover effect for the remaining members of the top Ten Percent. The cost of home ownership soared by capitalizing mortgages at falling interest rates into more highly debt-leveraged property. The U.S. economy experienced the largest bond-market boom in history as interest rates fell below 1 percent. The economy polarized between the creditor positive-net-worth class and the rest of the economy – whose analogy to environmental pollution and global warming was debt pollution. But in serving the banks and the financial ownership class, the Fed painted itself into a corner: What would happen if and when interest rates finally rose? In Killing the Host I wrote about what seemed obvious enough. Rising interest rates cause the prices of bonds already issued to fall – along with real estate and stock prices. That is what has been happening under the Fed’s fight against “inflation,” its euphemism for opposing rising employment and wage levels. Prices are plunging for bonds, and also for the capitalized value of packaged mortgages and other securities in which banks hold their assets on their balance sheet to back their deposits. The result threatens to push down bank assets below their deposit liabilities, wiping out their net worth – their stockholder equity. This is what was threatened in 2008. It is what occurred in a more extreme way with S&Ls and savings banks in the 1980s, leading to their demise. These “financial intermediaries” did not create credit as commercial banks can do, but lent deposits out in the form of long-term mortgages at fixed interest rates, often for 30 years. But in the wake of the Volcker spike in interest rates that inaugurated the 1980s, the overall level of interest rates remained higher than the interest rates that S&Ls and savings banks were receiving. Depositors began to withdraw their money to get higher returns elsewhere, because S&Ls and savings banks could not pay higher their depositors higher rates out of the revenue coming in from their mortgages fixed at lower rates. So even without fraud Keating-style, the mismatch between short-term liabilities and long-term interest rates ended their business plan. The S&Ls owed money to depositors short-term, but were locked into long-term assets at falling prices. Of course, S&L mortgages were much longer-term than was the case for commercial banks. But the effect of rising interest rates has the same effect on bank assets that it has on all financial assets. Just as the QE interest-rate decline aimed to bolster the banks, its reversal today must have the opposite effect. And if banks have made bad derivatives trades, they’re in trouble. Any bank has a problem of keeping its asset valuations higher than its deposit liabilities. When the Fed raises interest rates sharply enough to crash bond prices, the banking system’s asset structure weakens. That is the corner into which the Fed has painted the economy by QE. The Fed recognizes this inherent problem, of course. That is why it avoided raising interest rates for so long – until the wage-earning bottom 99 Percent began to benefit by the recovery in employment. When wages began to recover, the Fed could not resist fighting the usual class war against labor. But in doing so, its policy has turned into a war against the banking system as well. Silvergate was the first to go, but it was a special case. It had sought to ride the cryptocurrency wave by serving as a bank for various currencies. After SBF’s vast fraud was exposed, there was a run on cryptocurrencies. Investor/gamblers jumped ship. The crypto-managers had to pay by drawing down the deposits they had at Silvergate. It went under. Silvergate’s failure destroyed the great illusion of cryptocurrency deposits. The popular impression was that crypto provided an alternative to commercial banks and “fiat currency.” But what could crypto funds invest in to back their coin purchases, if not bank deposits and government securities or private stocks and bonds? What is crypto, ultimately, if not simply a mutual fund with secrecy of ownership to protect money launderers? Silicon Valley Bank also is in many ways a special case, given its specialized lending to IT startups. New Republic bank also has suffered a run, and it too is specialized, lending to wealthy depositors in the San Francisco and northern California area. But a bank run was being talked up last week, and financial markets were shaken up as bond prices declined when Fed Chairman Jerome Powell announced that he actually planned to raise interest rates even more than he earlier had targeted, in view of the rising employment making wage earners more uppity in their demands to at least keep up with the inflation caused by the U.S. sanctions against Russian energy and food and the actions by monopolies to raise prices “to anticipate the coming inflation.” Wages have not kept pace with the resulting high inflation rates. It looks like Silicon Valley Bank will have to liquidate its securities at a loss. Probably it will be taken over by a larger bank, but the entire financial system is being squeezed. Reuters reported on Friday that bank reserves at the Fed were plunging. That hardly is surprising, as banks are paying about 0.2 percent on deposits, while depositors can withdraw their money to buy two-year U.S. Treasury notes yielding 3.8 or almost 4 percent. No wonder well-to-do investors are running from the banks. The obvious question is why the Fed doesn’t simply bail out banks in SVB’s position. The answer is that the lower prices for financial assets looks like the New Normal. For banks with negative equity, how can solvency be resolved without sharply reducing interest rates to restore the 15-year Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP)? There is an even larger elephant in the room: derivatives. Volatility increased last Thursday and Friday. The turmoil has reached vast magnitudes beyond what characterized the 2008 crash of AIG and other speculators. Today, JP Morgan Chase and other New York banks have tens of trillions of dollar valuations of derivatives – casino bets on which way interest rates, bond prices, stock prices and other measures will change. For every winning guess, there is a loser. When trillions of dollars are bet on, some bank trader is bound to wind up with a loss that can easily wipe out the bank’s entire net equity. There is now a flight to “cash,” to a safe haven – something even better than cash: U.S. Treasury securities. Despite the talk of Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling, the Treasury can always print the money to pay its bondholders. It looks like the Treasury will become the new depository of choice for those who have the financial resources. Bank deposits will fall. And with them, bank holdings of reserves at the Fed. So far, the stock market has resisted following the plunge in bond prices. My guess is that we will now see the Great Unwinding of the great Fictitious Capital boom of 2008-2015. So the chickens are coming hope to roost – with the “chicken” being, perhaps, the elephantine overhang of derivatives fueled by the post-2008 loosening of financial regulation and risk analysis.

Biden claims "Funds are SAFU", meanwhile continuing to claim that outright stealing 50% of your income under threat of prison and death is "legitimate taxation", and that inflating your purchasing power away by printing money for GovPol power excess and pocketing at 35% every 10 years is OK... lol... Billion of activist via bitcoin, crypto, and gold fix this... Biden Insists "The Banking System Is Safe" US President Joe Biden attempted to calm the markets in a Monday morning speech, where he insisted that "Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe," and that US bank regulators and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen took "immediate" action to stop contagion among small and medium-sized banks following the Friday collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. "Americans can rest assured that our banking system is safe," he reiterated. Biden made clear that investors in the failed banks will not be protected. "They knowingly took a risk, and when the risk didn’t pay off, investors lose their money," he said, adding that the people running the troubled banks should be fired. When asked by reporters if there would be a ripple effect, and whether he could explain how and why this happened, Biden ignored the questions. Watch: * * * With bank stocks - most notably small/medium-sized banks - deeply in the red, it appears at first glance that The Fed/TSY/FDIC cunning plan to implicitly backstop every deposit is not stemming the contagion's tide. However, don't let that 'fact' get in the way of some good politics as President Biden readies to deliver remarks that 'you have nothing to fear but fear itself' as he explains how his admin will maintain a resilient banking system. "Tomorrow morning, I will deliver remarks on how we will maintain a resilient banking system to protect our historic economic recovery," Biden was cited in the White House statement Is he really going to maintain the narrative that the economy is 'strong as hell' amid a systemic financial crisis? White House statements claimed Biden had directed US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and National Economic Council Director to work with banking regulators to address problems at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. “I’m pleased they reached a solution that protects workers, small businesses, taxpayers, and our financial system,” he added. He also assured action against “those responsible for the mess”. “I’m firmly committed to holding those responsible for this mess fully accountable and to continuing our efforts to strengthen oversight and regulation of larger banks so that we are not in this position again,” he tweeted. The messaging will be clear: 1) This is not 2008 (correct, this is a good old-fashioned traditional bank run at the speed of light with mobile banking) 2) This is not a bailout (except that it 100% bails out all the VC and startup depositors everywhere all at once) 3) Someone will take the blame (Barney Frank already blamed crypto, the 'woke' risk managers didn't hedge rate risk, and The Fed was the main regulator and also caused the hole in SVB's balance sheet via rate-hikes) 'Mission Accomplished'?

Biden claims "Funds are SAFU", meanwhile continuing to claim that outright stealing 50% of your income under threat of prison and death is "legitimate taxation", and that inflating your purchasing power away by printing money for GovPol power excess and pocketing at 35% every 10 years is OK... lol...

Bank bailouts ultimately come out of your ass not theirs, plus the interest on that debt they made payable by your families for generations to come... Federal Reserve Launches "QE Extra Lite" To Bail Out Banks Via SchiffGold.com, In the wake of two bank failures, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury announced a bank bailout program that could be dubbed “QE Extra Lite.” Last week, Silicon Valley Bank was shuttered by federal authorities after the bank suffered significant losses selling bonds in order to raise capital. When that news hit, depositors rushed to pull funds from the bank, making it functionally insolvent. Then over the weekend, federal authorities shut down Signature Bank. On Sunday, the FDIC created “bridge banks” to handle both insured and uninsured customer deposits. Banking regulators assured depositors that they would have full access to all of their funds. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve announced a loan program that will allow other banks to easily access capital “to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.” The Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) will offer loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging US Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. Banks will be able to borrow against their assets “at par” (face value). According to a Federal Reserve statement, “the BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.” The US Treasury will provide $25 billion in credit protection to the Fed from the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This will ostensibly help banks avoid the situation that brought down Silicon Valley Bank. Backdrop Last week, SVB sold a large portion of its bond portfolio at a $1.8 billion loss. SVB CEO Greg Becke said the bank made the sale “because we expect continued higher interest rates, pressured public and private markets, and elevated cash burn levels from our clients.” The bank bought the bonds when interest rates were low. As a result, the $21 billion available for sale (AVS) bond portfolio was not yielding above cash burn. Meanwhile, rising interest rates caused the value of the portfolio to fall significantly. The plan was to sell the longer-term, lower-interest-rate bonds and reinvest the money into shorter-duration bonds with a higher yield. Instead, the sale dented the bank’s balance sheet and caused worried depositors to pull funds out of the bank. Many other US banks are likely in the same situation. As the Fed jacked up interest rates to fight price inflation, it decimated the bond market. (Bond prices and interest rates are inversely correlated. As interest rates rise, bond prices fall.) With interest rates rising so quickly, banks have not been able to adjust their bond holdings. As a result, many banks have become undercapitalized on paper. The banking sector was buried under some $250 billion in net unrealized losses on bond portfolios as of Dec. 31. The BTFP gives banks a way out, or at least the opportunity to kick the can down the road for a year. Instead of selling bonds that have dropped in value at a big loss, banks can go to the Fed and borrow money at the bonds’ face value. QE Extra Lite You could categorize this plan as quantitative easing extra lite. Understand, this is not exactly QE. The Fed is not buying Treasuries. It will only hold them as collateral for the loans. Once the loans are paid back, the Treasuries will go back on the bank’s books. But it is like QE in the sense that the Fed will create money out of thin air to make these loans. That is inflationary, just like quantitative easing, although the inflation is ostensibly temporary. When the bank pays back the loan, that money will drain out of the system. Of course, that assumes the loans get paid back. Also like QE, the Fed is putting its thumb on the bond market by incentivizing banks and other institutions to hold Treasuries instead of selling them into the market. In effect, it creates an artificial limit on the supply of Treasuries, which will artificially keep prices higher than they otherwise would be. In effect, this Federal Reserve loan program will have some of the same systemic impacts as QE, but on a much more limited basis – thus the term “QE Extra Lite.” Is This a Bailout? The powers that be insist this is not a bailout. But it is absolutely a bailout. The plan creates a mechanism for banks to acquire capital they couldn’t otherwise access under normal market conditions. Meanwhile, uninsured depositors will get their money back. The government can plausibly claim it is not bailing out SVB or Signature Bank. Both institutions appear to be doomed. But the government is bailing out uninsured depositors and it is setting the stage to bail out other banks that would have suffered the same fate without the loan program. In effect, the loan program and deposit guarantee signal to other banks that they have nothing to worry about. It also calms the public and lowers the likelihood of bank runs. Will Taxpayers Foot the Bill? The powers that be also insist this won’t cost taxpayers. Agins, in one sense, this is true. The US government isn’t going to raise taxes. And the only way the taxpayer would be directly implicated is if any of the banks taking loans defaults and Fed taps into the $25 billion in credit protection extended by the US Treasury. But as Peter Schiff pointed out in a tweet, the taxpayer will be on the hook for the inflation tax. According to @POTUS the government bank #bailout won't cost taxpayers any money. That's a lie. While it's true that no one's taxes will be raised to pay for it, the #Fed will print lots of money to cover the cost. That's #inflation and everyone will pay higher prices as a result. — Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) March 13, 2023 Even if it’s only temporary, the loans will inflate the money supply. That is the definition of inflation. And looking at the bigger picture, this bailout likely means the end of the Fed’s inflation fight.

Inflation Smokescreens The Economic Dumpster Fire Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us, The inevitable outcome was clear for a decade at least, but in the run up to the Covid lockdowns there were many economists in the corporate media that outright denied the reality of an inflationary or stagflationary crisis. Joe Biden, Janet Yellen, Paul Krugman and a host of journalists claimed that concerns about inflation were “overblown” and that the Federal Reserve had everything under control. Some might say they were ignorant. Some might say they knew the danger and they were lying about it. In any case, reality always wins in the long run and those who refuse to take facts and evidence seriously will eventually be exposed. This is exactly what happened from 2020 to 2023 as the stagflationary spiral took hold. While some people might attribute this outcome to the Covid pandemic, Covid stimulus or the war in Ukraine, though the signs were evident well before either of those events. During the build-up to this disaster, the Federal Reserve has been tightening and hiking interest rates into economic weakness. It’s the same thing they did in the early 1980s and the same thing they did at the onset of the Great Depression (which made the crash a hundred times worse). In 2019 I outlined this conundrum in my article The Crash In U.S. Economic Fundamentals Is Accelerating. The U.S. economy was already on the verge of a major crash by 2020 on top of an inflationary crisis. The $8 trillion Covid stimulus delayed the economic depression for a couple of years. However, as we can see from the explosion in prices, it was also the straw that broke the camel’s back. I noted in 2019 that there were a host of negative signals piling up and predicted that the Fed would continue to hike interest rates anyway: For the past ten years, the Fed has refused to acknowledge that there is no recovery. For the past two years, the Fed has been tightening liquidity despite the lack of recovery. And, even in the past four months with all the talk of the Fed “retreating” on QE and going “dovish”, Fed bankers still claim in their public statements that the US economy is enjoying a “solid” recovery. The Fed will not be cutting interest rates anytime soon. In fact, I continue to believe the Fed will hike rates again this year. Not that it matters, because the Fed’s benchmark interest rate has been climbing anyway, which may indicate the central bank is seeking to tighten liquidity while pretending it is “remaining patient.” In 2021, Joe Biden claimed that infrastructure spending would be a solution to the inflation problem while ignoring the fact that government spending was the primary cause of inflation in the first place. In my article Infrastructure Bills Do Not Lead To Recovery, Only Increased Federal Control, I noted that: Production of fiat money is not the same as real production within the economy… Trillions of dollars in public works programs might create more jobs, but it will also inflate prices as the dollar goes into decline. So, unless wages are adjusted constantly according to price increases, people will have jobs, but still won’t be able to afford a comfortable standard of living. This leads to stagflation, in which prices continue to rise while wages and consumption stagnate. Another Catch-22 to consider is that if inflation becomes rampant, the Federal Reserve may be compelled (or claim they are compelled) to raise interest rates significantly in a short span of time. This means an immediate slowdown in the flow of overnight loans to major banks, an immediate slowdown in loans to large and small businesses, an immediate crash in credit options for consumers, and an overall crash in consumer spending. You might recognize this as the recipe that created the 1981-1982 recession, the third-worst in the 20th century. In other words, the choice is stagflation, or deflationary depression. Right now, the U.S. is entering the “end of the honeymoon” stage of stagflation. The initial months of a mass stimulus program always creates indicators of economic health. But the truth is, these indicators are fleeting and the appearance of health is an illusion. The irony (or perhaps the agenda) when dealing with inflation induced growth is that the central bank often uses these signals to justify fiscal tightening and higher interest rates until the economy breaks. For example, mainstream economists noted a sharp increase of 3% in retail sales in January, after two consecutive months of steep declines. They interpreted this as a sign of recovery, but also as a sign of an overheating economy. So, more rate hikes are now expected. But did retail sales really increase? Or, are most goods and services just becoming too expensive and this is being translated as higher sales? If people are buying more, then why do business inventories continue to rise each month? Maybe because Americans are spending more but buying less due to inflation. Consumers have also been leaning heavily on credit cards the past year. Does this mean they are recovering and are more apt to spend recreationally, or, does it mean they are using credit cards to cover the price increases on their normal monthly expenditures? In polls, 33% of Americans say it will take them at least 2 years to pay off their credit card debts, and 50% of Americans say they need their credit cards just to cover normal essential living expenses. Furthermore, 45% of people said they had to take on more debt during the pandemic – and 40% say they are worse off financially since Joe Biden took office and only 16% said their situation has improved. This is not a recovery for the average American, but inflation in some areas of the economy can make it seem like things are improving on paper, if you only look at it from a narrow perspective. Employment stats are another indicator used to promote the concept of recovery, and here we get into the real smoke and mirrors of inflation. Biden often brags about creating 12 million jobs in the U.S. since he took office. What he doesn’t mention is that he destroyed over 25 million jobs with Covid lockdowns. And, the vast majority of jobs that have returned are low wage part time work. These jobs were essentially purchased with $8 trillion in fiat stimulus, as well as unemployment checks and the moratorium on rent payments. Americans were flush with a sudden influx of cash and so they went out and spent it, causing a temporary retail rush. However, the money has run out. The credit cards are maxed out, and time is short. Many in the public are awake to the threat because it is hitting them directly in their wallets. Yet, many others are oblivious. In my view the talk of an economic “soft landing” is yet another deliberate disinformation narrative being fed to the citizenry to keep people docile and unprepared. But even if you think there is no agenda and no malice intended within our government or within the establishment media you still have to consider the reality that they have been wrong over and over again when it comes to the economy. Why should anyone listen to them anymore? The gullible will assume, once again, that the mainstream analysis is accurate and that the ship is righting itself. They will assume that the worst of the storm has passed. I’m here to say the worst of the storm has just begun. As the Fed continues its policy of tightening, many people will find that stagflation is persisting and that QT is making little difference. Prices will remain high on most necessities, but other parts of the economy will be shrinking. Jobs markets will begin to falter, probably in Spring, along with stock markets, overseas trade, retail sales and wages. The initial indictors of “strength” will fall away revealing the true health of the system. Historically, this is usually when the populace gets very angry, and people are already on edge as it is. A rather dramatic distraction would be needed to keep the public busy and their minds off the central bankers and politicians that created this mess. Something even bigger than the pandemic scare. Economic disinformation is a double-edged sword – it buys the establishment time and keeps the public off balance, but by telling people circumstances are not as bad as they appear the shock is even greater when the crash occurs. Because a crash is coming – make no mistake. I don’t expect most paper assets to survive, let alone entitlement programs. Social Security, pensions, annuities? Either gone completely, or shambling on like zombies, sending out increasingly-worthless paper checks so politicians can tell us they kept their promises. For those of us who see the future clearly, there are very few “safe havens” for our money: farmland, livestock and commodities (particularly physical gold and silver). Resilient households will be prepared for much more than a 72-hour emergency. Start preparing yourself and your family without delay. The mainstream media and the administration are lying to us. Most Americans will be taken by surprise when the crash materializes – once they realize how thoroughly they’ve been duped, they’ll be looking for heads to roll. * * * After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

Yes, The Latest Bank Bailout Is Really A Bailout, And You Are Paying For It https://mises.org/wire/yes-latest-bank-bailout-really-bailout-and-you-are-pa... Ryan McMaken, The Mises Institute https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1634028534107602944 https:/twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1634564398919368704 https:/www.usbank.com/financialiq/improve-your-operations/investments-and-controls/protecting-cash-balances.html https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.ht... http://www.fdic.gov/analysis/quarterly-banking-profile/qbp/2022dec/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/bank-term-funding-progra... https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary202303... https://mises.org/wire/why-fed-bankrupt-and-why-means-more-inflation https://mises.org/wire/dont-call-it-capitalism-feds-8-trillion-hoard-financi... https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.ht... https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1635272942660784133 https://www.barrons.com/articles/svb-fdic-news-what-to-know-10bd0471 https:/fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPSACBW027SBOG https://www.statista.com/chart/29478/share-of-fdic-protected-deposits-at-sel... Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failed on Friday and was shut down by regulators. It was the second-largest failure in US history and the first since the global financial crisis. Almost immediately, the calls for bailouts started to come in. In fact, on March 9, even before SVB failed, billionaire investor Bill Ackman took to Twitter to insist a federal “bailout should be considered” if the private sector could not save the bank. Hours after SVB officially failed, Ackman was still at it, and in a 646-word panicky screed, he demanded that the federal government “guarantee SVB deposits” and essentially backstop the entire banking industry to keep failing, inefficient, and poorly managed banks afloat. Now, many readers might be saying to themselves, “I thought bank deposits were insured!” That, of course, is correct, but deposits are only legislatively insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Given that most normal people keep less than this in their bank accounts, that means the majority of bank users are not going to lose any of their money should their banks fail. Moreover, it is extremely easy to acquire deposit insurance on much more than $250,000 by simply keeping money at more than one bank. That $250,000 limit applies to the deposits at each bank where a depositor keeps funds. For customers with high liquidity needs, the financial sector offers tools for dealing with the risk of exceeding FDIC limits. In an illustration of the laziness and arrogance that so characterizes our modern financial class, however, many of the wealthiest depositors at Silicon Valley Bank couldn’t be bothered with managing their deposits, and they essentially ignored the deposit-insurance rules that even a ten-year-old understands when opening his first bank account. As a result, many venture capitalists and other wealthy SVB customers stand to lose a lot of money. At least, they stood to lose a lot of money before Sunday evening, when the Federal Reserve announced its new “Bank Term Funding Program” (BTFP), which promises to flood the banking system with new money and shore up the personal finances of wealthy depositors. This is part of a two-pronged effort to both make banks appear more financially sound, and to greatly expand FDIC payouts to depositors who have their funds in these banks. The official propaganda coming out of the administration, and from the usual Fed fanboys, is that none of this is a bailout. That’s a lie. The new steps being taken by the Fed and by the Treasury Department's FDIC are indeed ultimately bailouts for billionaires and other wealthy depositors. Moreover, this new program will require at least a partial return of quantitative easing. There’s no way to guarantee such huge sums of money without having to fall back on inflationary monetary policy yet again. This also means price inflation won’t be going away. Here is why. Propping Up Asset Prices with New Money The first prong of the bailout plan is to use extremely low-cost loans to shovel more money at banks in order to make them look more financially sound. The idea here is to head off depositor panics over uninsured deposits before they start. The first indication that this scheme is a bailout comes from the text of the press release on the creation of the BTFP. It states that the new program will be offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities [MBS], and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress. The key phrase is “These assets will be valued at par.” That’s important because these banks are facing huge unrealized losses, many stemming from losses on assets whose market prices plummeted as interest rates rose. Part of the reason these banks are in trouble is because their assets are no longer worth anywhere near par value in the marketplace: Yet, the Fed has decided to simply declare that banks' assets sit at par value and thus far more valuable than is really the case. It will let banks use these assets as collateral at the imaginary (higher) prices. Moreover, the terms of the BTFP loans reiterate how these are loans designed to hand money to banks for little in return. According to the Fed, “there are no fees associated with the Programs” and there is no penalty for prepayment. Foreign banks are also eligible, by the way. And, of course, “the Department of the Treasury . . . [will] provide $25 billion as credit protection.” If history is any guide, we can expect that Treasury backstop to get a lot bigger. If and when some of these banks default on the loans, the collateral won’t come close to covering the value of the loans. The banks are essentially getting free money. Where will the money to provide these loans come from? It will be printed, of course. The Fed is already bankrupt and has no extra money lying around. The Fed can’t just start selling off its $8.5 trillion hoard of Treasurys and MBS to get cash. That would drive down the prices of those assets even further, and this would make balance sheets at banks—who also own Treasurys and MBS—even worse. So, new loans and guarantees will have to come from new money. Another phrase for that is "monetary inflation." The FDIC Will Need a Bailout The second prong of the bailout is the FDIC's promise to cover all depositors at troubled banks, rather than just those with deposits up to the usual limit. The not-a-bailout narrative claims that the new promised expansion of insurance will all be funded by FDIC fees and imposes no costs on taxpayers. "The banks will pay for it," we are told. That’s not how it will actually work. In this three-minute video, Peter St. Onge explains the real problem: Is the FDIC bailout a bailout? pic.twitter.com/MHuEsEe3Z1 — Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) March 13, 2023 St. Onge notes that the FDIC fund available for backstopping deposits is less than $130 billion. Yet deposits in US banks total approximately $22 trillion. The FDIC fund is equal to about 0.6 percent of all the deposits. And it appears that even at the banks with the highest proportion of FDIC-covered accounts, only 42 percent of deposits are covered by insurance. So, clearly, extending FDIC coverage to all deposits means the FDIC will have nowhere near the funds it needs to cover potential depositor losses. The FDIC was never intended to insure rich people with deposits well in excess of FDIC insurance maximums. Yet that is exactly what is now happening. When the FDIC runs out of money, what happens? The FDIC runs to the US Treasury to get a bailout. Where does the money to bail out the FDIC come from? It comes either from current tax revenues or from borrowed money. Either way, the taxpayers are on the hook. Moreover, if the Fed intervenes to buy up some of that new government debt—to keep federal interest obligations low, of course—then taxpayers will also pay via the inflation tax. When we consider all this, we can see how the grift works: the Fed or the Treasury Department creates a “fund” and claims that it will be financed by fees and other nontax revenue sources. Thus, when the FDIC or the Fed rush to bail out banks, the politicians can claim the taxpayers will pay nothing. That is only true if the programs themselves receive no backstopping from the Treasury or from monetary inflation. But if we’ve learned anything since 2008, it’s that these programs all enjoy implicit guarantees of taxpayer backing, and that any “caps” on these amounts can be increased at any time. Expect More Price Inflation In any case, the ordinary taxpayer will certainly feel the pain in terms of ongoing price inflation. Current bailout efforts are inflationary and are thoroughly opposed to the Federal Reserve’s recent attempts at “quantitative tightening.” The whole point of the bailouts, after all, is to loosen financial conditions for banks. So the Fed will almost certainly be backing off whatever it had planned in terms of raising the target interest rate and reducing its portfolio at the next Federal Open Market Committee meeting. Now the Fed will be looking at whatever strategy it can find to increase the flow of dollars to banks, and that will mean more money creation, even if the Fed’s official position remains ostensibly hawkish. Put another way, get ready for more entrenched price inflation. But don’t forget that the primary focus of all of this is to bail out wealthy depositors and bankers. On top of it all, there’s no guarantee that it will even work. There’s a reason the financial technocrats are in panic mode. They don’t know what will happen next.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-14/why-did-signature-bank-fa... “In five years a number of banks will not be around because of blockchain technology. -- Joseph DiPaolo, Signature Bank CEO, 2018" "BREAKING: the US banking system" "Bitcoin has been waiting for 14 years to exist during a period of bank collapses and financial crisis." Anyone can "investigate" anything... https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/us-doj-was-investigating-signatur... https://cointelegraph.com/news/signature-bank-investigated-for-money-launder... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-15/signature-bank-faced-crim... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus#War_against_Persia_and_defeat https://v.redd.it/7dw6jdlw6ona1 Bitcoin FTW @pledditor https://v.redd.it/nr8mmzlrwuna1 Satoshi

"My conclusion is that politicians like Liz Warren together with regulatory bodies fragilized crypto banks and encouraged runs against them, then used withdrawals as a pretext to close them down. What was meant to be a surgical operation became a massive banking crisis."

Signature Bank was done by the corrupt Anti-Crypto GovBankPol's of the Deep State...

They corruptly shut down Silvergate too... https://www.piratewires.com/p/crypto-choke-point https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/barney-frank-says-more-shuttering-si... https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-regulator-taps-piper-sandler-new... https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/silvergate-was-not-cut-off-from-f... “Any buyer of Signature must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank, the two sources added.” Wait WHAT, the government making explicit decisions on who gets a bank account. And confirmed. This was an effective operation to shut down the crypto activities of the last remaining pro crypto bank reuters.com/business/finance… Let this settle any remaining doubt. The Signature closure was a targeted takeover in the darkness of a Sunday night to kill off legal activity from banking rails. Operation Chokepoint 2 is real. C2.0 confirmed nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 6h it's perfectly normal to seize a solvent $100b bank on a sunday because you dont like their clientele 90 202 15 1,519 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 14h Shocking interview with Barney Frank -- pushes back at DFS' assertion that Signature wasn't closed due to an anti-crypto animus... whole thing worth reading @jenwieczner 👏👏 nymag.com/intelligencer/2023… Barney Frank Says More on Shuttering of Signature Bank “I was sort of vindicated — they have not argued that we were insolvent,” says the author of the Dodd-Frank Act. nymag.com 52 319 52 1,118 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h the whole thing is absolutely bananas. some extracts - if FDIC/Fed had acted on Friday, the run wouldn't have taken place - Signature was ready and able to open on Monday 4 28 1 209 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h - NYDFS never admitted that Signature was insolvent (!!!) - instead, they claimed that Signature didn't give them sufficient data - but that's no reason to nationalize a bank - reiterates that DFS' main intention was to send an anti-crypto message 7 50 4 303 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h The government can apparently seize banks that are not insolvent just because they do not like them. 15 74 7 443 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h Frank alleges that the Signature scalping was a warning shot to any other pro-crypto bank. Confirms Chokepoint 2.0 and says it's working 6 28 5 261 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h - confirms that he's not saying this out of a pro-crypto bias (has always been skeptical) - says there should be a way for banks to support crypto, and it can be done responsibly - thinks it's wrong for banks to be deputized as crypto regulators, should be left to SEC 3 10 2 186 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h the whole thing is just astounding. nymag.com/intelligencer/2023… Barney Frank Says More on Shuttering of Signature Bank “I was sort of vindicated — they have not argued that we were insolvent,” says the author of the Dodd-Frank Act. nymag.com 4 23 2 258 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 13h this wasn't some two-bit bank, this was a renowned NY institution with a large practice outside of crypto. they had >$100b in assets, this was the 3rd largest bank failure in US history. and they were nationalized, while not insolvent. absolutely insane 17 82 5 569 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 12h so the government is going to need to furnish some very good explanations for why they zeroed out $7b of equity market cap ($22b at peak) arbitrarily nationalising firms is something thuggish banana republics do, not the USA 37 55 9 516 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 11h ppl calling me a conspiracist for pointing out SI and SBNY shutdowns were political & suspicious ppl called me a conspiracist when i broke this news in early feb too. piratewires.com/p/crypto-cho… Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services piratewires.com 17 27 1 322 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 10h One last thing, to determine whether this theory has legs. If another bank acquires SDNY and Signet is _not_ included in the package, it is clear that DFS took them down to take Signet (critical crypto infra) offline. Watch this part carefully. 18 20 5 311 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 7h And confirmed. This was an effective operation to shut down the crypto activities of the last remaining pro crypto bank reuters.com/business/finance… Exclusive: U.S. regulator taps Piper Sandler in new bid to sell Silicon Valley Bank -sources Regulators at the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) have tapped investment bank Piper Sandler Companies to relaunch the auction of failed lender Silicon Valley Bank, people familiar with the... reuters.com 34 52 18 340 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 7h Where were the people telling me this had absolutely nothing to do with Signature’s crypto activities a couple hours ago? Leo Schwartz @leomschwartz 7h Now I think we can safely say that (crypto) Signet is done Show this thread 20 90 12 526 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 7h Took three hours for my “baseless conspiracy” to be proven correct nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 10h Replying to @nic__carter @jenwieczner One last thing, to determine whether this theory has legs. If another bank acquires SDNY and Signet is _not_ included in the package, it is clear that DFS took them down to take Signet (critical crypto infra) offline. Watch this part carefully. Show this thread 6 5 3 191 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 14h So FHLB says they didn't compel Silvergate to prepay their advance; however, that prepayment is what triggered SI's collapse So Silvergate inexplicably committed suicide? That's the best explanation we have right now? coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/… 23 29 6 284 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 14h No one appears to know why SI abruptly prepaid their FHLB loan (and plunged themselves into bk), except presumably SI execs, who aren't saying anything, probably bc of pending lawsuits. So we have mysteries on mysteries. 6 7 2 100 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 16h Whip Emmer nails it. Coincidence that the three most prominent crypto-focused banks were taken down/nationalized in a week? Despite all surviving the crypto drawdown prior? Deliberate regulatory fragilization + opportunism is what killed them, not crypto. Tom Emmer @GOPMajorityWhip 19h Today, I sent a letter to FDIC Chairman Gruenberg regarding reports that the FDIC is weaponizing recent instability in the banking sector to purge legal crypto activity from the U.S. 👇 23 170 10 780 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 16h This outcome is extremely convenient for regulators that have been the _warpath_ against crypto-servicing banks. These 3 were not the 3 most HTM-security exposed banks, but they were the only 3 that were taken out I look forward to answers from the FDIC & NYDFS 5 5 1 148 nic carter 🌠 @nic__carter 17h USG- running critical infra powering the crypto industry thank u mr biden

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/03/14/crypto-didnt-create-t... Crypto up 85% thanks to all the free advertising :)

Fed Panics, Announces "Coordinated" Daily US Dollar Swap Lines To Ease Banking Crisis "The market stops panicking when central banks start panicking" In January 2022, just around the time the Fed announced it was launching its most aggressive tightening campaign since Volcker, we warned "remember, every Fed tightening cycle ends in disaster and then, much more Fed easing" Remember, every Fed tightening cycle ends in disaster and then, much more Fed easing pic.twitter.com/zX7Dur8nLG — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 5, 2022 Fast forward to just over a week ago, when the Fed tightening cycle indeed ended in disaster when SIVB became the first (of many) banks to fail, triggering a chain of dominoes that culminated with today's collapse of Credit Suisse - a systematically important bank with $600BN in assets. And then, at 5pm, the easing officially began, because while a bunch of laughable macrotourists were arguing on FinTwit whether last week's record surge in the Fed's discount window was QE or wasn't QE (answer: it didn't matter, because as we said, it assured what comes next), the Fed finally capitulated, just as we warned over and over and over that it would... Every time FRAOIS has been here, the Fed capitulated — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 17, 2023 If the Fed does not contain the regional bank collapse, there will be another great depression. Small/medium banks account for 50% of US commercial and industrial lending, 60% of residential real estate lending, 80% of commercial real estate lending, and 45% of consumer lending pic.twitter.com/wzTMHxSnXI — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 18, 2023 "Fed either pivots too early and turns dovish in to a high inflation scenario which is fairly bearish the USD thus helping gold or they pivot too late and cause a much bigger recession than is priced in right now, resulting flight to safety helps gold." - Goldman — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 5, 2023 ... and at exactly 5pm the Fed announced "coordinated central bank action to enhance the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity" by opening daily Dollar Swap lines with all major central banks, in a carbon copy repeat of the Fed's panicked post-covid crisis policy response playbook. The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank are today announcing a coordinated action to enhance the provision of liquidity via the standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements. To improve the swap lines' effectiveness in providing U.S. dollar funding, the central banks currently offering U.S. dollar operations have agreed to increase the frequency of 7-day maturity operations from weekly to daily. These daily operations will commence on Monday, March 20, 2023, and will continue at least through the end of April. The network of swap lines among these central banks is a set of available standing facilities and serve as an important liquidity backstop to ease strains in global funding markets, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses. And once the USD swap lines are reopened, the rest of the cavalry follows: rate cuts, QE (the real stuff, not that Discount Window nonsense), etc, etc. In fact, we have already seen a near record surge in reserve injections: The Fed may as well formalize it now and at least preserve some confidence in the banking sector, even if it means destroying all confidence left in the "inflation fighting" Fed, with all those whose were in charge handing in their resignation for their catastrophic handling of this bank crisis. Powell/Yellen out. Just a matter of time now — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 19, 2023 Then again, maybe they should just wait until he Fed hikes its inflation target to 3% or more - something else we predicted... At some point Fed will concede it has no control over supply. That's when we will start getting leaks of raising the inflation target — zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 21, 2022 ... because now that we are back in liquidity injection mode, well, say goodbye to hopes of seeing affordable eggs every again.

'Occupy Wall Street' Redux Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com, “The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it.” – John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath Negative Carry Borrowing short and lending long works mostly well most of the time. This is how modern banking works. You may be a customer at a bank. But you also supply the product. In short, a bank will pay you a small percent for the deposits in your checking and savings accounts, which you can withdraw at any time. This is the borrowing short side of the operation. The bank then takes your deposits and invests the money in some longer-term assets, such as loans and bonds that aren’t paid back for years. Say the bank earns 2 percent on its money while paying depositors a fraction of a percent. The bank pockets the spread, the net interest margin. Easy money. However, when the Federal Reserve intervenes in the market and presses the federal funds rate to zero and holds it there for 2 years (March 2020 to March 2022), driving yields across the range of maturities to 5,000-year lows, something bad is bound to happen. The experience for consumers over the last 24 months has been raging consumer price inflation. But that’s only a small part of the bad stuff that can happen. Because as the Fed jacked up the federal funds rate starting in March 2022, to contain the consumer price inflation of its own making, the yield curve has inverted. Short term yields are higher than long term yields. And banks, having borrowed short to lend long, have negative carry. Perhaps it would all works out for the banks if depositors stayed put. But in a world where you can score nearly 5 percent from Treasury Direct – with no brokerage fees – why keep excess deposits in the bank when you only get a fraction of a percent? It’s a good question… Answering the Call Customers at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) recently answered this question by pulling their deposits en masse. On March 9, SVB customers withdrew more than $1 million per second for 10 hours straight – totaling $42 billion – before the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seized the bank and declared it insolvent. This, in essence, was an old fashion bank run with a twist. The digital age pushed the bank run into hyperdrive. SVB isn’t the first bank to go bust borrowing short and lending long. It certainly won’t be the last. In fact, since SVB failed, Signature Bank has also failed. In addition, Credit Suisse is now getting a bailout from the Swiss National Bank. At this rate, any number of other banks could soon be toast. Quite frankly, we don’t’ care what banks go bust. What we’re really interested in is what happens after these banks go bust. In the case of SVB, a bailout – above and beyond FDIC deposits – is in the works, through the creation of something called the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP). What you need to know about BTFP is that it’s code for socializing losses. The regulators may say it isn’t a bailout. The taxpayer isn’t directly paying for it. Nonetheless, if you – the taxpayer – have a bank account, you will be picking up the tab via surcharges and fees your bank imposes to bailout SVB depositors. Is that fair? Should you have to pick up the tab for California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wineries, billionaire businessman Mark Cuban’s drug company, or any of the other rich elites that failed to appropriately manage their risk? On top of that, what will ultimately happen to the remains of SVB or other failed banks? Will the FDIC sell them off to one of the big banks like Washington Mutual (WaMu) was to JPMorgan Chase in 2008? Government bailouts and the consolidation of the banking business does not make banking safer. Rather it spreads the risk across the whole landscape like mustard seeds on a hillside. This, in effect, propagates a much larger banking crisis sometime in the future. It also propagates civil disorder and social discontent. And for what? When banks merge and consolidate over and over again the implications can be heinous. To this point, for fun and for free, we’ll take a look back at the quintessential bank failure of the 20th century. Where to begin… Epic Bank Failure In 1820, Salomon Mayer von Rothschild (1774-1855) established his business, S M von Rothschild, Vienna. Vienna was the capital of the Austrian Empire at the time. When S M von Rothschild died in 1855, his son Anselm von Rothchild (1803-1874) founded Credit-Anstalt as K. k. priv. Österreichische Credit-Anstalt für Handel und Gewerbe. This Rothchild bank became the largest bank in Eastern Europe before World War II. Credit-Anstalt held assets and took deposits from all over Europe. Then, in 1931, it failed at the worst possible time. The bank’s failure was a direct result of the United States’ Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. The act crippled Europe’s economy and led investors to redeem all the capital they’d lent to the bank. The failure of Credit-Anstalt caused Austria to abandon the gold standard, which set off a series of economic dominoes. Germany left gold. Then Great Britain. And finally, in 1933, so did America. The failure of Credit-Anstalt is what really kicked off the Great Depression. The real story, of course, is not Credit-Anstalt’s collapse. It’s what let up to its collapse. Today, with the Federal Reserve having first compelled banks to stretch for yield in long dated maturities, before then hiking short-term interest rates, banks are being put to an extraordinary test. Without question, there will be more SVBs in the coming weeks. What’s more, a series of bank bailouts and consolidations could be the perfect setup for a very destructive Credit-Anstalt situation. The BTFP bailout of SVB – and Gavin Newsom – offers a pathway to a mega crisis. Here’s why… Forced Mergers When the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed at the end of World War I, Credit-Anstalt continued to offer commercial, investment and savings to customers in both the former empire states as well as Amsterdam, Berlin, Bucharest, Paris, and Sofia. Its shares were traded on eleven exchanges, including New York. Credit-Anstalt became the largest bank in Austria through a series of forced mergers to bailout other Austrian banks that had failed. These forced mergers may have been expedient. But they were not intelligent. That is, they did not always pencil out. Moreover, it resulted in the creation of a bank that was larger than the rest of Austria’s banks put together. It also concentrated the accumulated losses of Austrian industry in a single super bank. Over time, Credit-Anstalt’s balance sheet eclipsed the size of the government’s expenditures. Approximately, 70 percent of Austria’s corporations did business with it. In 1925, Credit-Anstalt’s equity was only 15 percent of what it had been in 1914 (at the onset of WWI) and its debt-to-equity ratio rose from 3.64 in 1913 to 5.68 at the end of 1924. By the end of 1930 it had ballooned to 9.44. Part of the increase in the size of the bank came from loans which Credit-Anstalt made to businesses of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. To make these loans, Credit-Anstalt borrowed money, primarily from Great Britain and the United States. However, the loans from Great Britain and the United States were only on a short-term basis. Any failure to renew these loans would lead to the demise of the bank. The effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act essentially toppled the credit pyramid. On May 11, 1931, the bank announced that it had lost more than half of its capital. This was a criterion under Austrian law by which a bank was declared failed. The announcement of losses led to a panic and bank runs on Austrian banks. Occupy Wall Street Redux The crisis that started in Austria and extended to the European continent, continued to Great Britain. The island nation went off the Gold Standard on September 21, 1931, after its gold reserves shrank from £200 million to £5 million. Twenty-five countries soon followed in Britain’s footsteps, depreciating their currency against the U.S. dollar or leaving the gold standard. By the end of 1931, the Depression (with a capital D) was global. FDR took the U.S. off the Gold Standard in April 1933, confiscated the gold of U.S. citizens, and devalued the dollar. By this, workers, savers, and taxpayers got a raw deal. They always do. For example, during the 2008-09 great financial crisis and bank bailouts, workers, savers, and taxpayers also got a raw deal. They lost their jobs. They lost their houses. They lost their life savings. Yet the big bankers still got their big bonuses. If you recall, these bailouts triggered major social discord where the 99 percent took to the streets to Occupy Wall Street. The current bailout of SVB depositors – above and beyond FDIC limits – is resurfacing these same strifes. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wineries got a bailout. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban’s drug company got a bailout. Many other Silicon Valley rich elites got a bailout. Therefore, shouldn’t students get a bailout of their student loans? Shouldn’t mortgage and credit card debt be cancelled? Shouldn’t RIFed Googlers get a bailout so they can keep making big bucks sitting in padded hypnotic meditation chambers? These questions are absurd. But so are the bailouts of SVB’s big depositors and the further consolidation of the banking industry. What if, like Credit-Anstalt, JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America were to fail? These are the grim opportunities that bank bailouts and bank consolidations make available. After decades of prolificacy, followed by decades of ambivalence and apathy, America’s headed for complete financial, economic, and societal catastrophe. You can see it. You can hear it. You can feel it. You can taste it. You can smell it. First stop: Occupy Wall Street Redux. In closing, owning physical gold and silver has never been more critical.

SVB's London Bankers Received Up To $36 Million In Bonuses Days After BoE-Orchestrated Bailout Bankers at the London branch of Silicon Valley Bank reportedly received tens of millions of dollars in bonuses just days after the Bank of England orchestrated a rescue package that led to Europe's largest lender, HSBC, buying the failed bank's subsidary for just £1, Sky News reports.

Ted Cruz Blasts Biden For Bailouts Of Corrupt 'Bonnie And Clyde' Banks Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News, Senator Ted Cruz has slammed the Biden Administration for effectively bailing out Silicon Valley Bank, labelling it a ‘corrupt Bonnie and Clyde’ like operation. On his “Verdict” podcast, Cruz stated that the failure of SVB has “called into question a lot of the financing for venture capital, and it has potentially imperiled a significant number of mid-sized banks.” SVB was more focused on virtue signaling than protecting their investments. More on the latest episode of #Verdict: Don't Call It A "Bailout", But It's a Massive Big Tech & China Bailout Full episode here:https://t.co/7GWJppnm9F pic.twitter.com/82qCnoNu49 — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 16, 2023 “In response to this, the Biden administration rolled out a major bailout, conveniently bailing out the politically connected friends of the Biden White House in a way that will have lasting repercussions for the economy, and will almost certainly incentivize future bad conduct by other banks,” Cruz asserted. The Senator continued, “They were gambling that the Fed would not raise rates even though they’d been screaming from the mountaintops that they were going to raise rates.” “A bank that is being prudent can hedge its investments against interest rates rising by investing also in counterbalancing investments that will go up when interest rates go up. They didn’t do that! They were focused on virtue signaling. They were focused on showing just how woke they are,” Cruz added referring to the revelation that SVB was obsessed with pushing ‘diversity and inclusion’ policies: Remember that time Signature Bank cut ties with President Trump and called for his resignation? Or that time SVB and Signature started going woke? Well now the sayings are true… Go Woke Go Broke… Everything Woke Turns to Shit… pic.twitter.com/z3WcJ1lYLb — Bryan McNally (@BryanDMcNally) March 13, 2023 “These bank officers were bad actors,” Cruz continued, adding “Let me let me tell you two data points that have been vastly underreported. Number one, hours before the bank was shut down Silicon Valley Bank gave very substantial bonuses to all of its employees. They just began writing checks to everyone hours before they were shut down. Data point number two: in the two weeks prior to their being shut down, the CEO and the CFO sold large amounts of stock. The CEO ended up making over a $2 million profit from selling stock less than two weeks before the bank was shut down. Both of those indicate corrupt intent.” Cruz also noted that he “had a conference call in the last 48 hours with all 100 Senators were invited to participate and Treasury and the FDIC was on there and I asked I said, ‘Look, is it true that they gave bonuses to their employees, number one? If so, I think it is outrageous. And number two, has there been any investigation into clawing back those bonuses?’” “As far as I’m concerned, this is like Bonnie and Clyde,” Cruz charged, urging that “They’re robbing the bank as they know their customers’ deposits are about to get blown up. And much of the media coverage has ignored the exceptionally bad conduct by the bank’s officers.”

Get Woke, Go Broke? It's Time To Talk About SVB's Ties To The World Economic Forum https://alt-market.us/get-woke-go-broke-its-time-to-talk-about-svbs-ties-to-... https://www.svb.com/globalassets/library/uploadedfiles/wef-index.pdf https://www.svb.com/globalassets/library/uploadedfiles/svb-environmental-soc... https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-r... After the implosion of the FTX crypto exchange run by Sam Bankman Fried, questions of due diligence and competency immediately arose, suggesting that perhaps the company mishandled assets “accidentally” and that Fried was naive and “in over his head.” Numerous central bank officials and globalist organizations jumped into the debate almost immediately, arguing that FTX was a perfect example of why centralized regulation of crypto and digital currencies was necessary. They claimed that without oversight by banking elites, disaster was inevitable. Of course, what they did not mention was that FTX and Sam Fried already had extensive connections with globalist groups including the World Economic Forum. In fact, the very basis of Fried’s business model was the WEF’s “Stakeholder Capitalism” theory, which he often referred to as “Effective Altruism.” Stakeholder Capitalism is essentially the opposite of free markets – It is a socialist/globalist framework which uses corporations as a kind of economic enforcement tool. Corporations are already highly socialistic in their operations, and their existence is completely dependent on their special relationship with government. Corporations are created through government charter, enjoy special protections under “corporate personhood” laws and avoid direct consequences for criminal activities through limited liability. Many corporations are not even allowed to fail because governments backstop their operations. That’s socialism, not free markets. However, “stakeholder capitalism” expands on this dynamic a hundred-fold. Where free markets assert that businesses must make profit their primary objective for the overall economy to function, the WEF asserts that companies including banking institutions have a social obligation that goes beyond making money. To the typical leftist this probably sounds like a Utopian vision filled with promise, but to anyone that actually understands economics it sounds like a recipe for the collapse of civilization. The WEF paints stakeholder capitalism an effort to reign in the power of the corporate system in favor of social causes. In reality, it’s a way to give corporations ultimate power over everything, including ultimate influence over public behavior. We have seen extensive evidence of this through widespread corporate ESG investment programs implemented in the past several years. It is no coincidence that the invasion of woke ideology into the mainstream happened at the exact same time that ESG-based lending accelerated. The institutions lending to various companies were able to set social rules for access to credit, and these rules required businesses to adopt far-left politics in their marketing and policies as a result. Stakeholder capitalism is about homogenizing all business into a single ideological entity – Instead of competing with each other for market share through innovation, companies have been abandoning merit based competition and are colluding to saturate the mainstream with social justice cultism, climate change propaganda and globalist rhetoric. By making corporate elites “responsible” for society, we give them the power to engineer society. However, the WEF’s model of false altruism is turning out to be a disaster for corporate survival. I have to wonder now if this was the intent all along – To create a kind of ESG fueled woke financial bubble that was always intended to come crashing down, leaving the western world in ruins. Ever since the fall of FTX, the WEF has been quietly erasing all traces of their involvement with the company and with Fried from their website and YouTube channel. However, the WEF’s influence is widely evident in the operations of FTX and Fried’s philosophy. There were multiple reasons for FTX capital losses, from plunging crypto prices to embezzlement. That said, the root cause was stakeholder capitalism ideology and it’s reliance on cheap liquidity to support ESG policies. And, we are seeing the exact same dynamic within other institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. Surprisingly, even the International Monetary Fund (like many of us in the alternative economic media) warned about the potential frailty of ESG related lending in an environment where central banks are tightening liquidity and raising interest rates. The IMF stated in 2022: “Financial stability risks include the different investor base relative to more traditional investors and a potentially higher sensitivity to global financial conditions, given the technology-heavy composition of many ESG indices. That’s an important consideration in the current policy environment, with central banks in advanced economies raising interest rates and reducing policy accommodation put in place during the pandemic—a development that is starting to tighten financial conditions around the world.” Looking into SVB’s operational history, the company was a woke nightmare. Take a gander at their 66 page ESG report compiled in 2021 to get a sense of how far to the extreme political left the bank was. SVB is the pinnacle example of why “Get Woke, Go Broke” is more than a mantra, it’s a rule. Digging even deeper we then find that SVB’s leadership was highly involved in the WEF and their Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM), along with corporate governance. SVB was not only implementing every single policy the WEF outlines in its agenda, they were reporting back to the WEF on their progress. SVB’s capital exposure was heavily tied up in securities, but also venture capital for woke tech startups, climate change related projects and leftist activist groups which qualified for ESG loans; everything from BLM to Buzzfeed. In other words, they were investing aggressively into money-pit projects that devoured cash and gave nothing back. The real question is, how many US banks are involved in ESG and WEF operations at the same level as SVB? Dozens? Hundreds? As I have noted in recent articles, the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes have made ESG liquidity untenable. It is much too expensive now for banks to lend (or borrow) to finance losing ventures such as woke tech companies and climate change non-profits. All “too big to fail banks” are involved, this is well known, but do they have the capital and the protection to stay afloat despite the central bank’s liquidity noose? Clearly, mid-tier banks like SVB are highly vulnerable. Was the main goal of ESG lending NOT to lure corporations into promoting woke causes, but to trick them into ignoring competent profit models and innovation, making them weak and easy to topple? The woke invasion within the US business world is starting to die anyway. You can already see the shift back to a search for profits and an abandonment of social justice virtue signaling. Peak woke happened over the course of the covid lockdowns, and now it is fading. It was never going to have staying power because it is far too unhinged and cultish to be widely accepted in American society. Beyond that, the WEF’s “Great Reset” concept will require a substantial economic crisis in order to be achieved. There’s no way they will ever get Americans to embrace stakeholder capitalism or the “I own nothing and I’m happy” sharing economy under normal economic conditions. So, they need a crisis event to create desperation within the populace. Look at it this way: In order for globalists to get the total corporate governance they want, they might be using woke ESG to destroy the existing system, so that they can then replace it with an even more pervasive woke structure. All while blaming free market capitalism in the meantime. It’s a very similar idea to the globalist strategy of blaming “nationalism” for the very geopolitical crisis events that globalism is triggering. Given the sheer scale of woke saturation within the current corporate world, I can’t help but wonder if the entire economy is utterly rotted from within due to ESG and WEF related financial cancers, and is simply waiting to crumble just like SVB did.

FDIC Demands Signature Bank Buyers Stop All Crypto Business: Report Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com, The FDIC regulators have reportedly required any buyer of Signature to agree to give up all cryptocurrency business at the bank... The United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has reportedly asked potential rescuers of some failed U.S. banks not to support any crypto services. The FDIC regulators have asked banks interested in acquiring failed U.S. lenders like Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank to submit bids by March 17, Reuters reported. The authority will only accept bids from banks with an existing bank charter, prioritizing traditional lenders over private equity firms, the report notes, citing two sources familiar with the matter. The FDIC aims to sell entire businesses of both SVB and Signature, while offers for parts of the banks could be considered if the whole company sales do not happen. The FDIC has also required any buyer of Signature to agree to give up all cryptocurrency business at the bank. New York-based Signature is a major crypto-friendly bank in the United States. The bank is known for many partnerships in the crypto industry, servicing companies like Coinbase exchange, stablecoin issuer Paxos Trust, crypto custodian BitGo, and bankrupt crypto lender Celsius — among others. The news comes amid U.S. Representative Tom Emmer sending a letter to the FDIC, expressing concerns that the federal government is “weaponizing” issues around the banking industry to go after crypto. “These actions to weaponize recent instability in the banking sector, catalyzed by catastrophic government spending and unprecedented interest rate hikes, are deeply inappropriate and could lead to broader financial instability,” Emmer said in the letter to FDIC chairman Martin Gruenberg. Today, I sent a letter to FDIC Chairman Gruenberg regarding reports that the FDIC is weaponizing recent instability in the banking sector to purge legal crypto activity from the U.S. 👇 pic.twitter.com/fDmaA0XGWv — Tom Emmer (@GOPMajorityWhip) March 15, 2023 The New York State Department of Financial Services officially closed down and took over Signature on March 12, appointing the FDIC as the receiver. To protect depositors, the FDIC transferred all the deposits and most of the assets of Signature Bank to Signature Bridge Bank, a full-service bank that will be operated by the FDIC as it markets the institution to potential bidders. According to Barney Frank, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York regulators closed Signature Bank despite no insolvency. Frank speculated that the action was to demonstrate force over the crypto industry, being a “very strong anti-crypto message.” However, the FDIC in January said that it didn’t prohibit or discourage banking organizations from providing banking services to customers of “any specific class or type, as permitted by law or regulation.” Later reports suggested that Signature CEO Joseph DePaolo and chief financial officer Stephen Wyremski allegedly committed fraud by falsely claiming the bank was “financially strong” just three days before it was shut down. The bank has also reportedly been investigated for alleged money laundering.

Make no mistake, SI, SIVB, SBNY, Custodia, Kraken, Coinbase, ETF's and many more, were all coordinated immoral and illegal US Govt targeted attacks on Crypto Freedom. Balaji @balajis This shows how the Fed caused the banking crisis. They deny licenses to full reserve banks like Custodia and the Narrow Bank. And they cause bank runs and mass withdrawals by crushing the balance sheets of fractional reserve banks. Financial chaos in the name of stability. Custodia Bank ™ @custodiabank CUSTODIA STANDS FIRM IN RESPONSE TO THE FED Pomp @APompliano Custodia Bank sought Fed approval as a bank that holds $1.08 for every $1 deposited. No fractional reserve lending. No non-sense. They were denied. The Fed blamed bank runs as one reason — the irony of saying this while approved banks have lost BILLIONS in customer funds. Cathie Wood @CathieDWood Why have bitcoin and other crypto assets appreciated during this banking crisis? In our view and in contrast to those in the traditional financial world, many crypto assets face no central points of failure: they are decentralized, transparent, and auditable. Think of the Fed and friends as the system administrators of Western fiat economies. With the press of a key they can seize, freeze, create, or inflate any fiat asset. But they can’t do that to Bitcoin. It’s outside their control. Instead, it’s under your control. BIG BANKS OR BITCOIN? This is why conventional macroeconomic theories of what is about to happen may break down. Because confidence in the US banking system has broken down. More than $500B[1] in wires has already flown through the air in recent days