Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Tucker Carlson Exposes What SVB Executives Prioritized While Bank Failed | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report" video.

@forsakenquery Yes it IS their fault. If a business can't offer a sound financial plan, you don't loan them money. Old fashioned banking. A business must make money and the banks should only loan to businesses who view that as their priority. Bad managerial decisions will end in bankruptcy.
3
And why didn't they keep enough liquid capital? Could it be because their business focus was elsewhere? Could that something else be that they were centreing in on woke progressive policies in-house and in investment parameters? I'm no banker but I'm sure there has to be a reason why there was no liquid capital available. Shouldn't that be an integral part of the business model and red flags that tell you that there are problems in important areas of the business?
1
@Anans1_Spyd3r There's still a reason for bad management. Also, the minute that Trump and Biden brought in those HUGE budgets, that should have warned them that the interests rates were going up and that they'd better prepare for it. Obviously, they didn't. Maybe they weren't in a position to do it but it's still something that you have to be prepared for. It's not as if banks haven't gone bankrupt before. You laid out a problem. It's not as if this was a big secret. It should have been a priority to remain in a strong position and they obviously didn't do that. Bad management and there's a reason for it. It doesn't have to be a scandal. Incompetence isn't a scandal but it will still run you into the ground. It would still be in the best interest of any other bank to make sure that they don't make the same mistakes that SVB did because they obviously weren't prepared. Why they weren't prepared is the question. If you ignore that, as a banker, you run the risk of making the same mistakes that they did.
1
@Anans1_Spyd3r My point is that they should never have allowed themselves to be in a position to be forced to sell those bonds at a loss. They should have had every scenario worked out and then safeguards in place to prevent those scenarios becoming a problem. They should aspire to maintain stability over the long term and they quite obviously did not do that. Why didn't they? That's the next question. What policies did they have to prevent such a thing and it they didn't have those policies, why not? That's when you have to look at the top executives to see what their motivations were. That's how we see whether they kept their eye on the ball or not and whether those motivations got in the way of running a profitable bank. If other banks don't look into it, they might make the same mistakes themselves and it will be disastrous. The triggers that set it all off are just symptoms of something that was deeper within that bank. That's my point.
1