Lisa Benson for March 17, 2023

Lisa seems unhappy depositors got their money back after the bank failed due to republican deregulation.

We all know lisa would probably fund this guy to start another bank just so it van shut down again

Eat the rich!

The average middle class would hve their oney secure ( below the $25K federal insurance). the millionaires and tech businesses with lots more are the ones who are getting the bailout, and they are also major donors to liberal politicians. With Biden, you listen and it sounds good, but you always need to look for the motive and follow the money.

Lisa displays her awesome knowledge of economics.

Again.

Go woke, go broke.

The 200 billion used to back uninsured SVB deposits was the FDIC fund that was supposed to protect all depositors in all banks up to $250,000. But many SVB customers were Chinese companies and big Democrat donors. Yellen even admitted that if the next bank to fall was in OK, there may not be the same deal for those depositors.

The comic has to do with the fact that Newsome lobbied Biden to protect all deposits in SVB, including those over $250,000.00 (the max that is covered by the FDIC), but he didn’t disclose that he would benefit as he had funds in the bank, higher than $250,000.00 for his 3 wineries. What a scumbag. And he wants to be the next POTUS. California is #1. #1 in the state with the most people moving out. Can you imagine the U.S. with him as POTUS? UGH

Seems like a recurring theme; "Congressman Patman: “How did you get the money to buy those two billion dollars worth of Government securities in 1933?”Governor Eccles: “Out of the right to issue credit money.”Patman: “And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government’s credit?”Eccles: “That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.”Congressman Fletcher: “Chairman Eccles, when do you think there is a possibility of returning to a free and open market, instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?”Governor Eccles: “Never, not in your lifetime or mine.”— Marriner Stoddard Eccles(1890-1977) US banker, economist, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1934-48)Source: during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941"

Has anyone taken a minute to ask themselves, why would millionaires put money in a bank (that don’t help your account to grow much) instead of the stock market. Guess even the rich liberals know not to trust Biden as the Captain of the ship. Don’t believe me? Here’s a CNN headline…Biden’s stock market record so far is the second worst since Jimmy Carter.

I doubt Newsom will be the one celebrating, unless he was a heavy depositor with SVB. If so, he has a right to celebrate when his government protects the little folks for a change.

Anyone who gets above $250 k should be revealed to the public so we can see how much money went to China and Democrat donors.

They Needed to get Diversed from their money. Woke = Broke!

He’s a big POS

Odd, Lisa didn’t complain when the rich did this after getting their big tax cuts…

I didn’t get this comic so I looked into it. Seems that Newsom has personal accounts and winery business accounts in a blind trust in SVB. So, he’ll definitely benefit from Joe scrapping the $250K reimbursement ceiling. But so will a rich Trump supporter I recall reading about in all the “ink” expended on this debacle. Bottom line, any Senators or Congress people griping about this should clean up their own house first by outlawing stock trading while holding office. Then they can talk about others benefitting from holding office. At least Newsom could only ask that the ceiling be done away with. He couldn’t personally do away with it like a Congress person can directly act on insider information with no repercussions. Those crooks can’t even comply with the weak Stock Act that only requires that they report their trades – not that anything is ever done with that info anyway.

Running Man Hawley did put up a bill banning trading by congress persons but he named it The Pelosi Act so it was more of a jab at her trades than an effort to curtail trades.

Nothing to do with deregulation, but some to do with the regulators of the Biden administration no seeing this coming or turning a blind eye .. either way. If this becomes the norm what would keep a banker to go to vegas and put it all in red ?

That tired old lie has been debunked but I can’t expect you idiots to follow news that you don’t agree with

Ms. Benson, I read your comic to counterbalance my left leaning contributors. If I am not offended, you are not getting your message across.

The depositors yes, the investors no; however, watch the investors tax write offs on this case.

Greasy Gavin always looks out for himself 1st, he closed our schools while his kept learning in private school, he ate out after he closed all the restaurants. Why wouldn’t he lobby to save his millions.

“The Age of Easy Money” on Frontline this week is a must watch before anyone starts trying to pin the blame on any one party or person.

DEREGULATIONS MY @SS:

Silicon Valley Bank might have been able to make good on $74 million promised to customers had it not pledged the money to leftist causes.

According to a new database by the conservative Claremont Institute, the collapsed bank donated or pledged to donate nearly $74 million to groups related to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, told The Federalist that SVB’s failure on the heels of its left-wing activism “is yet another indication that SVB was focused on woke virtue signaling instead of protecting their customers’ deposits.”

“Time after time we see the same pattern: companies that are the most concerned with ESG scores and woke politics do the worst jobs serving their customers,” Hild explained. “The rest of corporate America should learn from SVB’s failure now, before they are the next company to make headlines for comically poor management.”According to numbers emphasized in the report’s facts page, SVB spent $2.8 million on “gender parity innovation” and “diverse emerging talent.”That same year, the bank’s parent company, SVB Financial Group, advertised an $11.2 billion investment in an ambiguous “community benefits plan” pouring money into low-income housing assistance.Last year, the SVB Financial Group pledged $5 billion in loans to support anti-emissions efforts by 2027.

SVB fell apart this month after the company made a bad bet on lower interest rates. Now depositors are getting a bailout from federal officials while residents of East Palestine, Ohio worry whether their town is safe to live in. – Tristan Justice, The Federalist

As to the matter of imprudently managed banks, isn’t it finally time that all parties concerned–including large depositors—are made to pay the price for their feckless and reckless indifference to financial risk?

As a reminder, the unfolding of financial markets during 2022 was a screaming wake -up call that mis-matched bank portfolios were a trainwreck waiting to happen. After all, last year the 30–year UST tanked by 39.2%, marking the greatest one-year decline since, well, 1754! Likewise, the 10–year UST fell by 17.8%, another record vaporization of value. That’s why, of course, unrealized bank portfolio losses went from $15 billion in Q4 2021 to a staggering $650 billion in Q4 2022. And no one was hiding the ball—every dime of these potential losses were reported in the quarterly SEC filings.

Yet, and yet, bank executives and uninsured depositors sat on their hands because these soaring risks were not running thru the income statement and thereby causing bank stock prices to fall even further.

It should be evident by now that deposit insurance has nothing to do with either sound money or a prudent banking industry. It has remained in place for decades because it is a social policy-–protection of the little guy—parading as a financial stabilization measure. But it doesn’t stabilize—it inherently and egregiously de-stabilizes, as has been implicit in every financial crisis during the last half century.

So if they want “social policy” for the little guy and the blue-haired ladies, give these folks access to a $250,000 government savings account paying 50 basis points of interest as far as the eye can see. For every one else, let them be the watch-dogs of their own money in the commercial banking system.

That’s the very predicate of a stable banking system and sustainable free market prosperity. – David Stockman, LRC

EJ Antoni, research fellow in regional economics with The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, told FOX Business on Saturday that the collapse had “nothing to do with Trump or Dodd-Frank” and more to do with an “unusual confluence of events.”

Antoni explained that the bank “dealt almost exclusively with tech firms which usually rely on continuously rolling over large debts” which means that the firms are “not paying off their debt but simply taking out new debt to pay off the old.”

“Second, SVB put a disproportionate amount of its cash into long-term bonds. Ordinarily, that’s not a bad strategy, but it’s unwise when interest rates are zero because those rates must rise eventually,” Antoni said. “When rates rise, bond prices fall. This is because an investor with the choice to buy an existing bond at a low rate or a new bond at a high rate will choose the new bond since it’s a better return on investment. If you want to sell the old bond with its lower interest rate, you must be willing to sell it at a discount; otherwise, no one will buy it.”

In Antoni’s telling, SVB set itself up for failure by tying up most of its deposits in bonds and having an undiversified clientele that all needed their money at the same time.

“SVB had to sell its bonds at a loss to raise cash,” Antoni said. “Limited transactions like this would not have been catastrophic, and in fact happen regularly in the financial sector on a small scale.”

“SVB was a case of mismanagement that was made possible by the unrealistically low rates from the Federal Reserve,” Antoni told FOX Business.

What kind of mental gymnastics do these brainwashed wokes need to do to convince themselves that “Republicans” caused a woke bank failure.

After all, “go woke go broke.”

The dems have had the house for 4 years and all 3 branches for 2 years, but have somehow managed to keep the wokes brainwashed into thinking they were not in charge.

What does the governor of a state have to do with bailing out a bank?

First, the rich expect the poor/middle class to bail them out of their student loans. Now, the rich expect everyone else to bail out their bank accounts. It’s 2008 all over again. What next?

The Gods of the Copy Book Headings are stalking us.

Never happen Franks asked for the exception they relented

Look over here!

Why did Newsome want SVB bailed out to save is investments

Stop the lie deregulation that wa bipartisan had nothing to do with failures, dum woke policies did