Yes!

Amen to that!

then if you are poor, and the government pays you for that, you can´t get money for work anymore?

The point of some people depositing stuff in the bank is too invest and make a little extra money. If you give that deposit money to a person that doesn’t want to work to get a paycheck then you just loose that money

@@nikolaievans2432 You want people to starve to death?

YESS I laughed out at the Irony🤣

It was perfect

They won't blame themselves, that's for sure

oh no its this guy....

love your channel btw

Very big con and that is why i have always maintained that people should never have their money in the bank! Get a financial advisor and even make so much more while saving!

@@andreasleonard0 Very true , I diversified my $400K portfolio across multiple market with the aid of an investment advisor, I have been able to generate over $900k in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds in few months.

My husband and I were following this same trajectory. Last two years, I pulled out my money and invested with her wealth manager. Not catching up with her profits over the years, but at least I earn more

@@kevsmills we’re only just an information away from amassing wealth, I know a lot of folks that made fortunes from the Dotcom crash as well as the 08’ crash and I’ve been looking into similar opportunities in this present market, could this coach that guides yo help?

@@vivianecardoso0 It's run by ISABEL LINDA DUERI, who I learned about and got in touch with thanks to a CNBC interview. Since then, it has served as the point of entry and departure for the games we have emphasized. A search on the internet can be done if tracking is necessary

It still shows a weakness in the system that a company can fail with safe investments. Allowing banks to only have to keep 10% is a massive vulnerability, especially in a bank where 90% of clients have more than the insured amount. The moment there’s a hint of panic people will pull money, doesn’t take much to hit that 10% reserve. One bank shouldn’t have the potential to trigger potentially hundreds of companies to fail (because their savings are gone overnight) without government help.

I agree, the products are safe but they give a very low return. The problem is the age of maturity, in these cases up to 10 years. So when SVB wanted to sell these they couldn't get all their money back because you could buy “new” bonds with higher returns for the same price. I have a video on my channel explaining this. No one wanted the bonds SVB was holding so they dropped in value and SVB had to sell them anyway when customers were withdrawing their money.

They also tell us to have a 6 month emergency fund while they empty all our bank accounts

Not just Bad decisions. Negligent decisions with Our money.

They also get a huge bonus when they make poor decisions.

in this case not really.. how is buying state bonds when there's a pandemic and war in europe going on a bad decision..? This is so easy for you to say with hindsight. 🤷‍♂️ people working at banks are doing their job like everyone else..

@@mike496 they are just doing their jobs giving themselves a bunch of bonuses before they take the golden parachute? It’s not about the bonds.

Good

Good

That's indeed very true...the bank is liable to pay back..

Nice

I love him more

Centre around two key targets. In the first place, remain safeguarded by realising when to offer stocks to cut misfortunes and catch benefits. Second, get ready to benefit when the market turns around. I suggest you look for the direction a representative or monetary consultant.

With the assistance of an investment advisor, I was able to diversify my $401k portfolio across multiple markets, earning over $980k in net profit from high dividend yielding stocks, ETFs, and bonds in just a few short months.

@@markgeorge8206 She is Julie Anne Hoover my consultant. Since then, she has devoted section and leave attention to safeguards that I have been keeping an eye out for. You can locate information about the chief online, on the off chance that you're interested. I made no regrets about substantially adhering to their exchange strategy.

not just shareholders were left out, the debt holders were also left for loss

Fuck a shareholder, that’s their investment they gotta live with the risks. That seems to be the crux of of why people are so torn on this situation though like everyone can agree in the short term this is the only move that prevents panic because we’re all dumb. I don’t think anyone has the answer yet to whether long term this sets a bad precedent. Frankly I think all of these KZfaq videos about the crisis are exacerbating things. Like at the end of the day these KZfaqrs are risking more unrest more panic for the short term attention/profit, they might calm fears too who knows. It’s a slippery ass slope and we’re all a bit guilty here

Just so that people know the whole picture, this bank was considered well run and innovative. In October of 2021 their stock got up to $750. In December of 2022 the stock fell all the way down to $198. Clearly a massive move down and a company in major distress. It was possible knowing how banks work and the fact that the Fed was gonna have to raise rates, you could have bet against this bank using options and made a absolutely huge return. Trump helped to cause this disaster by doing away with regulations on regional banks like Silicon Valley. This bank was able to keep its investment portfolio in riskier than necessary bonds and the Federal government had no way of knowing about it.

Wait really? Can you point me to the article? Because that would be extremely significant! That would be almost unheard of in the past half century, I think...

@@monhi64 Good point. We need less incentive to create buzz, overall. On the wonkier side, In general I say fuck a shareholder too, but for the whole system to work at all, you need to give everybody some kind of insurance, but tier it much more in favor of people who were not intending to gamble but were just looking for a place to put their money. But yeah we sometimes forget that money is entirely imaginary, just a symbol of some sort of value we already brought or could bring into the world. The stock market is just a flying ball of imaginary money, everybody tossing some in and pulling some out. But is the stock market totally unnecessary? Well, if you weren't able to trade stocks in companies after investing in their IPO, then your gain or loss would be permanently tied to the success of that company, and people would have a lot less incentive to invest. So you have less investment and therefore, in theory, less innovation across the economy. I think the sweet spot is just treating people fairly according to their stake in things - if you work for a company or have a reasonable amount of money in a bank, then you should have a vote in who is on the board who are responsible for identifying various courses of action or investment, and then you should have a vote about which of those courses to take. There's no reason why large shareholders should be the unquestioned dictators of the private sector (which is guaranteed to penetrate the public sector - siphoning money off a tank filled with the collective wealth of huge numbers of poorer people is a fantastic way to stay rich, after all). If we're going to have a system based on private ownership, then it should be fair - what a brilliant concept! But that's the actual root of many of our problems today.

This is a joke right? Yall looking for solutions without addressing the actual problem of banks lying about how much money they have. Legalised greed then punishing the greedy is like being upset at people for getting too fat after you opened an all you can eat burger and donut buffet for free. If I lie about having a million dollars I go to jail, if the bank does it, it's a sign of a fictional economy. Yall can suck on my credit!

This was the opposite in America

They also gave jail time to those bankers that were guilty of misappropriation.

Meanwhile the ones in the states get a slap on the hand and senior management gets new jobs at new banks

Dont forget ragulation

Yeah, like its like rewarding them for their mistakes. Its like a parent let his kid punch another kid, and gave candy to his kid for doing so and not get any consequences. This is really irresponisble and corrupt that banekrs can simply not just get away of it, but actually gain some while tje rest suffer.

Be careful what you ask for. Every law has an unintended consequence.

@@rafaeltorre1643 Undoubtedly, but, if these people had any morals above making more money for themselves it wouldn't be an issue.

That still doesn’t solve the problem. And Doesn’t solve any problem. Is thats an impotent attempt at class warfare.

In my opinion even if someone saves the bank the bankers still needs to take responsibility.... I mean if there are no repercussions, what's to stop them from doing the same "mistakes" over and over again

same with politicians

SVB has failed. Under what law can you prosecute the bankers? They invested in Treasury bonds in 2020 and 2021, if you knew better then you would be rich enough to not be commenting on YT videos.

But what would SVB need to be prosecuted for? If they met their reserve amount before the run, it was bad decision making but not illegal

@@motog-rocks6544 you're missing out that our economie is based on division of labour. They're getting paid to know better. And they onmly should get bonusses if they know better than other experts in the field, which is the sense of a bonus. I wouldn't let an investment banker set up an respirator at an ICU, which is my job and what I'm getting paid for. And if I fail, I would have to face the consequences. So why managers don't have to?

Yeah not gonna happen

Another trump supporter caught 😌

My thoughts exactly

Normally I'd agree with that customers shouldn't be penalized but SVB wasn't a "traditional" bank and a lot of the money put there was venture capital, who should have known better and had amounts that aren't normally insured with FDIC. If these types of customers get bailed out then it's a free for all for investors to put money into banks that provide unreasonably high intrest and get baile out sooner or later when it becomes unsustainable. TLDR: we shouldn't bail out customers who do risky things

You're thinking is a bit too rational. Would you mind giving us your address so that we can have some people come and uh.. "talk" to you? Just to set the record straight is all. You understand.

You are absolutely right👍

Most college professors don’t teach you how to learn, they just teach you a portion of *what* THEY learned.

Professors are generally hired due to their knowledge and pedigree, not how well they teach

I am in my second year in college, from all professors we had, only one knows how to actually teach and simplifies things. Professors in general don't know how to teach.

SVB and 1st republic actually had reserves that exceeded those potential regulations so that would not have factored in. The reason for lobbying for the weaker regulations was to give small and mid size banks a little more flexibility to compete with bigger banks. That would help them grow and provide competition with larger banks. Several politicians tried to float this as the cause for the disaster but were quickly corrected and that is why it did not gain any traction. A combination of the unintended consequences of the inflation reduction law, poor bank monitoring by the san francisco fed, a very poorly chosen board of directors and poor executive management is what led to it.

You're awesome too ya know :D

What is this, a crossover episode?

Your videos are just as good Cleo!

I hope he's not overworking his team

Its for them to make money back. So its that thing also. And there is a lot of fluff to this VDO. When too many people are talking about something, the action has already passed.

It’s not even good in the short run. I thought capitalism had this all figured out and needs govt to stay out the way??

​@@newagain9964 govt needs to intervene constantly or else capitalism destroys all our lives and the entire living world.

Yeah people keep saying letting the banks fail will tank the economy, what they don't realize is constantly bailing them out can also tank the economy. This bailout model is unsustainable. The government doesn't have unlimited money. More bailouts encourages more incompetence and riskiness, which in turn leads to more bank runs, which in turn leads to more drain in government budget.

@@TomCruz54321 the government does have unlimited money though, the problem is just inflation if they create lots of money to bail out banks.

@@TomCruz54321when you bail them out the Gov eats the loss when you don’t you eat it.

Well, a lot of people lost their jobs, stock and bondholders lost their money. Since they didn't break any laws (regulations on mid sized banks were "rolled back" a few years ago), what accountability do you think is missing? This does show a need (I think) for increased regulation of financial institutions that will cause systemic impacts. We seemed to only have partially learned that lesson after 2008...

And, like the Catholic Church with problem priests, the perpetrators will just shuffle around from one institution to another.

That would be antisemitic

there isnt much to hold accountable as all banks do this. The fed needs to raise the reserve amount so loan will be more expensive especially to poor people.

Well I'm sure there will be bonuses for those responsible

Bitcoin

@@HoneybeeHollowGardens trading one fiat currency for an even more obtuse fiat currency is not the answer.

Unfortunately corruption breeds corruption. There is a reason banks and investment companies are one of the top donators to politicians. It's for moments like this after all

There's another side to this argument where deregulation allows new competitors into the market, and the increase in competition ensures that no single bank gets too big and the risk is spread out. If a small-medium bank collapses, the system won't go down with it.

@@James-gm9cs If everyone weren't so corrupt maybe this could work.

@@James-gm9cs I respect your point of view, it is a valid one. But the priority has to be stability of the system. At the end of the day, an executive's recklessness should not destroy someone's financial wellbeing.

@@ZachBobBob exactly. Too many of these systems rely on good faith which we all know is impossible

So infinite loan money with no reserve, that's not going to cause a problem in the future, riiiiiiighhtt???

@@darkionx It's probably a major natural disaster is coming and that's why they don't care, because it won't matter. The rich are hoarding money to build massive underground paradises for them to go after it all goes down

I think you are not explaining it very well because this sounds really stupit, zero reserve? what would happen if everyone pulls out the money at ones there? It sounds like an even bigger problem

This is not true, we have the highest reserve ratio in the world.

@@manyakus8919 ok you have that, but would you not also have that when their would be a 10% mandated? How does saying you do not need to have a reserve be the reason for having the highest reserve? I do not see the connection

It's done buddy 🎉

It's done buddy 🎉

Idk why people say you need to invest your money or else it just gets loss to inflation. Even banks with teams of financial experts lose it to investing at times

I’m gonna be that guy, I watched the 2hour documentary by PBS about this “easy money policies” and I didn’t understand anything. KZfaq then recommended this video the next day lol

@@Bee-tj8gc to avoid losing value in hard earned money to inflation

@@Bee-tj8gc If you simply put your money in an etf and hold it for a long time your very unlikely to lose money. If you just leave your money in the bank account inflation will slowly gobble it up.

@@just4interest996 Coldfusion did a good explainer, too. Well worth a watch.

His political slant is obvious when you can see the passive aggressive nature of his words. Hardly neutral.

@@rkadowns indeed, while Johnny cannot be described as 100% neutral...his politics are quite obvious in his videos.. I would say he's like rather than being 50/50 he's 60/40.. So while he's hardly neutral, he's not heavily biased either. That's why I watch him, cause I know that most of what I'm getting is factual and entertaining

YES, thank you! I thought is slant was just me. He gets so many tiny details wrong then builds on them. 10% reserve is a lie. And he clearly slants his videos to his political bios. To bad, as his videos like is politics only looks good on the surface.

@@TheStickman419 he’s polite which means his ideas are not outright dismissed. He appears to be able to have a conversation. I’d buy him a beer for his conversation.

His video would 190 degrees if a republican was in office. So many little details are "off"

You're probably not gonna believe a random KZfaq commenter about this, but both this video and what you've been taught about the 'money multiplier' at undergrad are wrong. The Bank of England explain here: www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf?la=en&hash=9A8788FD44A62D8BB927123544205CE476E01654

Ha same

LMFAO its funny how people call crypto a ponzi scheme but when banks run a literal ponzi scheme y'all call it "multiplier effect" and praise it🤣🤣🤣

@@alexalex66666 What do you expect from sheep that think they aren't sheep? I am a sheep.

damn now ill step my game up for my next video on this

Ain't lyin

Ever heard of "Captain Crunch"? As an animator myself, he's someone that you just have to know to meet up with anything sort of deadline

There's a relatively small group of folks that have been expecting something along the lines of SVB crashing for a couple years -- since around the time Archegos ate shit, so perhaps he's been keeping an eye on that DD. Joe coming out of the crypt to comment on it should scare y'all, not because he has anything to do with it, but because he usually keeps on the downlow

Johnny Harris has a talent for that. He is not always 100% correct, and is sometimes more strict driven in his explanations but if there's one thing no one beats Johnny at, it's narration and breakdowns

I think Johnny did necessarily did enough research on the subject. The taxpayer didn’t bailout svb. Silicon Valley bank has more assets than deposits so the government will just sell those assets slowly until all depositors are paid back. The gov giving everyone their money back even the money that wasn’t insured is basically the gov loaning out money until they sell svb assets. For the executive it’s just a coincidence that the bonus were paid a day before it failed. The bank exec have to let the sec know 3months prior to giving out bonus so it’s just not overnight

You're welcome!

​@@koikoi5520 "did necessarily did"

@@koikoi5520 Also poorly researched, since he thinks the reserve rate is 10%. It *not* being 10% is a huge part of the problem. And I agree, it's not technically a bailout under SVB's circumstances. SVB will cease to exist as an entity, and that ain't no bailout.

Love how tax money keeps propping up a system that is not stable in any way. If capitalism is natural, then it shouldn’t have a crisis every decade.

​@@Neptunestef propose a system without crisis cycles

The banks that failed are banks that fell outside of regulatory capital requirements imposed by the Fed on the big banks. Another way of saying it is that the Fed runs simulations on all of the big banks every year to see what would happen if a certain number of scenarios occurred. If you fail one of these stress tests, then the Fed requires the bank to liquidate some of their investments to raise capital. All of the banks should be subject to the same requirements. The FDIC and the big banks are the ones propping up places like First Republic and SVB, not taxpayers. Just research the FDIC, it’s pretty straight forward. Banks pay premiums into an insurance pool, and the pool is used to cover depositors. All the big banks have passed their stress tests in each year since the financial crisis, which is why you see they are doing just fine right now, and if SVB had been subjected to the same tests, their capital risks would likely have been identified. Frankly, if the government had just taken a passing glance at SVB’s balance sheet, they would instantly have seen something was wrong. The corruption surprisingly has not been from the big banks, but from the Community Banking lobby which fought hard and spent a lot of money to be exempted from the big bank requirements.

@@Neptunestef why shouldn't it have a crisis if it's natural? The people in charge at the bank and the politicians both make way more money The broken part is US politics and regulations The problem in the US is the missing backlash and penalties for effectively corruption

​@@Neptunestef Bailing out a failing company isn't capitalism at all. The US is FAR from a pure capitalist society. Any form of "Government" that relies on any form of a monetary system is never ever ever going to be looking out for the citizens.

Excellent comment.

Lol I was watching a documentary about this yesterday. Happened 1939, happened in 2008, and we're still doing the same thing again and again

And because SVB was using long-term assets to pay short-term investments, any risk assessment would catch this very easily. This only works if you never will be forced to sell the long-term bonds, and they had *A LOT* of these bonds.

Yeah this was mentioned in the WSJ video.

Amazing quote!

Thomas Jefferson held a deep-seated distrust of banking institutions, particularly central banks, and this distrust was grounded in his views on individual liberty and the sovereignty of the United States government. Jefferson believed that banking establishments posed a serious threat to individual liberties, as they had the power to control the issuance of currency and, in doing so, could manipulate the economy in ways that favored the wealthy and powerful. He argued that banks had the power to create inflation and deflation, which could lead to the impoverishment of the masses and the enrichment of the few. Jefferson believed that the people's property was at risk if banks were allowed to control the issuance of currency, as they could use their power to take advantage of the people and enrich themselves. Moreover, Jefferson was concerned about the potential for central banks to undermine the sovereignty of the United States government. He believed that private central banks issuing public currency would give too much power to a few wealthy individuals, who could then use that power to influence government policy and undermine the principles of democracy. Jefferson argued that the power to issue currency should belong to the people, not private banks, and that allowing private banks to control the issuance of currency was a threat to the sovereignty of the United States government. In summary, Jefferson's views on banking institutions were grounded in his belief in individual liberty and the sovereignty of the United States government. He believed that private banks, particularly central banks, posed a threat to these values, as they had the power to manipulate the economy and potentially influence government policy in ways that favored the wealthy and powerful. Jefferson argued that the power to issue currency should belong to the people, not private banks, in order to safeguard the liberties and sovereignty of the United States.

Bro it’s too late for that in California, anyone who financed or refinanced after 2008 owns a lien not land.

@@Bombstark Too bad they're bullshit quotes. Jefferson never said those things.

Shame on you for posting these "quotes" without googling for a couple minutes. They're not real; "deflation" wasn't even a word until the 20th century. Don't just believe the authenticity of "quotes" you find online.

Johnny was flat out wrong about that. The bonuses were for all employees, and it was for work done from 2022. Nothing about it was out of the ordinary.

@@AndorranStairway Can you provide a source for that? Now I'm not sure who to believe.

@@AndorranStairway It may be part of the regular bonus schedule, but if the work being done in 2022 (and before) contributed to the collapse in 2023, I think a lot of people would still take issue with that. By holding those bonuses hostage when a bank collapses, it ensures a level of accountability by both the employer and the employee. Maybe an employee who knew something was fishy could have called out the company about poor money management practices, but if they have a bonus hanging over their head as a carrot, there's no way they're going to speak up and give themselves the stick by potentially puting themselves out of that money.

@@Guru_1092 The source: m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/acWcdMVp0p-xoH0.html

Not a single mention of the banks donating millions to BLM and left wing foundations before their collapse.

He's not alone, there's a whole team working on his videos. Gotta credit them too.

He's a drama queen

Nobody cares

He is Woke liberal with work views

@@Didnt_ask69 obviously you do. Since you have commented multiple edgy dumb comments on this channel. 🤡 Clown

Its because our entire system is a house of cards.

They’re doing what we thought they do, what all banks are doing. Just need the right conditions and they failed. The 10% holding is the issue. We’re sacrificing stability for economic growth.

Hold on to your shorts when Credit Suisse goes under.

I do not believe it caused the entire country to panic but I will tell you what is. My bank ..Key Bank . Had no money on Friday. No fifties, no hundreds, only small bills that had been deposited . Ok. BUT, there was a huge moving truck. Parked at the side door of the bank, and all the banks files, etc.were being removed....the Bank is closing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Yet there was no announcement to depositors....

That panic is why the Federal reserve exist in the first place.

Not sure the Federal Government raises rates I thinks it's the Federal Reserve.

this is the worst comment i have ever read. it just irks me for some reason. so cringe

and get bailed by gov when they failed, ez $

How nice of them to give us a small cut of the profits they made from using *our* money

​@@andreasp3700 As is your reply... How ironic.

All the banks are doing it. Your money isn't safe. Even if the banksters don't steal it, inflation will.

Time to nationalize everything

LMAO. Money doesn't "multiply". He can't withdraw money until the baker repays the loan. So. Say the bank closes its doors. A new bank takes over the oven loan (a bond). The new bank has the oven loan and this guys account balance. In a equilibrium. Stop spreading ignorance. #KZfaq

Not that long if you have a team of editors lol

It is a bit too long for everyone, but it should do. Try searching for Fractional Reserve, there is no need to point specifically to SVB, all banks are at risk, it is a systemic problem and there is no solution within the current hegemonic economy thinking. You need the Austrian school of Economy, anything else will just perpetuate the cycles of bubbles and crashes. The State intervention aggravated the problem, prolonging the distortion that "banks are safe", no they are not, stop giving money to them unless you are willing to say goodbye to it.

Exactly

Just like the new Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) rolling out this year.

It’s a couple old sayings: When you put “all your eggs in one basket” your entire ability to survive becomes a “house of cards” propped up on a perception of stability. In 2008 too much money was in mortgages. In 2001 too much money was in the internet. In 1990 too much money was in the Gulf War. In 1980 too much money way in Iran’s oil. It’s always the same story. The bank HAS to play with your money in order to make money…and they always take it too far and exceed the risk you are willing to accept. And they mess up.

How about setting up an international lottery; one in which every bank CEO & CFO are the tokens. If their name appears on the 'winning' ticket, they and their families are incinerated. The important question here is: should this lottery be played only once a year or every month? Lottery name: WE DON'T EXIST TO BE SCREWED OVER

u just said it urself, they recieved bonuses in the past, they recieved it now and will recieve in the future

The CEO also sold stock a week before. And whereas most bank exec stock sales are declared months in advance this was not.

Well our monetary system has made the US far and away the richest most powerful empire in human history. So much so that the world uses our dollar as the international standard. While it's far from perfect it's done a damn good job so far

Don’t forget to add the I.O.U’s in that intro. Yes, the initial 10000 dollars is multiplied to 100000 dollars, BUT there is also a total of minus 90000 (in debt) in those same banks. The 100000 dollars is circulating in the economy, and the 90000 dollars that have been created are compensated by debt (so by putting 90000 of “missing” dollars in the accounts). That money needs to be paid back, and when it is, you automatically get back down to the original 10000. There is nothing scary about this system. If you don’t want this, then nobody would be able to loan money to buy a house or start a business. You would have to save up for 25 years and THEN buy a house. As long as everyone trusts this system, there is no problem. Your money is not gone. It has just been lent out, and will return eventually. The bank does “own” all of the money in the deposits. It is just parked somewhere else and it will return to them later. There’s nothing weird or scary going on here…

Information communications are so bad at schools

I give the birds $28 /month. That's how much a 25 lb bag of sunflower seeds cost. (Actually $30...includes the $2 sales tax).

@@JusticeAlways Argh, I hope you are not one of the people who are the reason that pigeons shit all over the place. We have perfectly fine parks nearby, but those birds just stay in the little room for the trash, because they are fed seeds by someone twice a day. The little food they forage for is fast food from the bins. What a life. No wonder they are fat af.

Lemme tell you, I live in a country which does have public banks. As well as public healthcare. Some places it may work, where the economy is less unequal perhaps, but here in Brazil it only serves to broaden the abyss between the rich and poor.

@@luckas221a i get it both pros and cons, and atleast they won't crash

Public banks are the worst. Try banking in India. Many of them don't even have computers.

They treat you like trash. That is why I prefer private banks.

Public banks would create worse inflation than private banks. The problem does NOT originate from private banks, it stems from centralized banking (ie central banks). Also, not having 100% reserve requirements.

What bad behavior did this bank do that directly caused this bank run? From where I'm sitting this all could have been prevented if fund managers didn't literally tell their entire startup portfolios to withdraw their money at once. Investing a large sum in bonds isn't even known to be a risky investment, it just hit them at the unluckiest time possible.

@@mattsmitt00 everyone and their mom knew the fed would raise rates eventually and this bank did nothing to hedge their bets. Its mismanagement. They also lobbied against their bank facing the same rules as larger banks, claiming they were just a small regional bank.

@@mattsmitt00 They didn't keep sufficient reserves and did so legally because they had previously lobbied the government to allow them to be exempt. They probably engaged in some other bad practices given the recent behavior's of the staff (selling off shares and paying themselves bonuses right before the crash suggests they may have known it was coming.)

@@pahwraith Yes, everyone knew that the Fed would raise their rates. But fewer people bet on a bank run. SVB was not (and is not) the most exposed to the risk of T Bills. In fact, it is not in the top 10. BUT, it does (unfortunately for them) have a high concentration in customers who acted in unison. That is a risk that was far harder (though not impossible) to plan for. (I agree with you about the lobbing for reduced regulations. Obviously, they and all mid sized banks should have been regulated as they were originally after the 2008 crisis).

@@osamabinladenssecondgirlfr4241 You are incorrect about the cost of behaving more safely. They don't actually keep cash or gold as deposits. My understanding (although I could be wrong) is that they keep it with the reserve bank or some other bank which can in turn lend it out. The difference being that if they ask for it back they don't potentially loose money because of the urgency.

Johnny's videos are way to dynamic and entertaining to miss.

That's what they, in the business, call foreshadowing

Why would it be illegal? This is how banking is done 😂the fact people actually give money to a blatant scam should be illegal. Anyone that dumb doesn't need to be amongst society 🤦🏾‍♂️

What's the alternative though? You can't finance your house unless you saved up the full amount? You can't replace your broken oven to keep your business going? And don't say the government can help, because their money is just as imaginary.

@@Korilian13credit institutions aren’t bad (coops, credit unions, and dare i say it a public bank). But Our banking structure is bad.Very bad. Funnels $ to the wealthy.

@@newagain9964 how do you think those credit institutions work? did you see what just happened to credit suisse? it got bought. by a bank. credit institutions are a mirage.