Most of the “Clinton Democrats” are.
7 Likes
Reminds me of the Lehman Brothers chart.
3 Likes
I would point out that investors in this company would not be paying any unrealized gain tax.
5 Likes
Billionaires are market failures, the Government should totally regulate them, and the best way of doing it is by taxation. If they want to resign citizenship and move to another jurisdiction then great, it will open the competition in the US.
6 Likes
OT BREAKING
E. Jean Carroll gets to use the Access Hollywood tape!
17 Likes
Then just confiscate all their assets and guillotine the bastards.
9 Likes
This one wasn’t. Usually when a bank gets taken under, they simultaneously announce a deal with a healthy bank to take over the assets (and remaining obligations to assetholders). Didn’t happen this time, got dumped wholly on FDIC, for now.
8 Likes
They would have each year that they held it, had this scheme been in place. So right now, filling 2022 taxes, you’d be paying some type of capital gains taxes based on some value of it last year, even if you just literally lost all of your investment today.
Not gonna like that one, but not gonna not-like that one.
1 Like
She liked the ones with the red fringe more, I liked the oreo technique.
4 Likes
loudest dogs, safest kennels
14 Likes
That’s because they would have paid tax on unrealized gains each year as it went up. And probably got a deduction for unrealized losses each year it went down. Annual valuation Dec. 31 at the close determines the taxable unrealized gain/loss. Assuming a growing economy and continual investment opportunity in incredibly profitable innovations such as the semiconductor, the online marketplace, the cellphone, etc., the net result would be positive tax revenue.
of course, in the matter of SVB, the round trip net would indeed be zero.
10 Likes
Happens regularly, because that’s what the FDIC is for.
The FDIC has taken control of the bank, and will spread its assets over several other banks, and absorb most of its liabilities.
Only stockholders will take a bath.
8 Likes
Tell someone you don’t understand what wealth is without telling them you don’t understand what wealth is.
Hint: unrealized capital gains is like when you’ve gained capital but haven’t actually sold instead of leveraged it yet.
3 Likes
Not necessarily. The $250K FDIC-insured levels, absolutely. But a lot of multi-millionaire silicon valley folks may take a haircut. Saw a reference to around $170B in assets and $209B in liabilities, so a bunch of people may not be made whole at the end of this.
Thus the call by Larry Summers and others for a “bail out the rich” thing to make all of the investors whole. Fuck that.
14 Likes
How do you argue with a stupid person? Answer: You can’t.
5 Likes
Not necessarily. The FDIC insures only up to something like $250k. SVBs primary customer is startup companies. These are not robust deeply liquid entities. Lacking their SVB deposits, a bunch of them will start missing payroll by the end of march. Even if they eventually get their money back, it’s a death sentence for most of them.
SVB was killed by an old-fashioned bank run. It is likely depositors will have to take a haircut, but even worse, most of these depositor companies cannot survive a couple months’ delay while the FDIC sorts things out.
8 Likes
A bailout is not a receivership, which is what is happening here. A bailout would be something like TARP. And there will be some political pressure for a bailout, because of the knock-on damage to the high tech startup industry.
6 Likes
And Congress and Biden better not fucking cave and give it to them.
I was opposed to student loan bailouts, and I’m equally if not much more so opposed to this bailout. We all know the rules about what’s protected and what’s not, if you’ve got the assets to be exposed, you’ve also got the resources to have been smart about it and protect your assets by spreading things around.
2 Likes
About 93% of SVB’s deposit were uninsured.
This is a venture capital bank. Also, there’s no indication they’ll be bailed out.
9 Likes