The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 Regulated Banks The Obama administration enacted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 to help avoid future meltdowns in financial markets — and the massive government bailouts that follow. Essentially, the law recognized that many banks are so important to the economy that they must be rescued from complete collapse in times of trouble. Dodd-Frank identified certain banks as being systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) that need to operate by certain rules to protect their assets. These rules prevent banks that take customer deposits from making risky bets on the financial markets, mandate the size of banks’ capital reserves — or how much cash they have on hand — and require banks to perform routine “stress tests” that simulate a crisis to see if they can remain solvent. Dodd-Frank Was an Unpopular Law There’s an old saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. By that standard, the Dodd-Frank Act might have been a master stroke. The law has been roundly criticized by the banking industry and many conservatives for over-restricting banks and making it harder to stimulate economic growth with more lending. At the same time, it has also been the target of ire from liberals who feel that Dodd-Frank didn’t go nearly far enough in limiting banks from risky behavior. Part of the problem is that — until there’s another major crisis — it’s difficult to know for sure whether the rules were too hard on banks, not hard enough or some sort of regulatory Goldilocks that was just right in fostering growth but also protecting the economy. Trump Deregulates Banks in 2018 In May 2018, a rare bipartisan bargain resulted in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act getting signed into law by Trump. The final bank deregulation bill was a compromise — the previous version passed the House of Representatives in 2017, but it had to get rolled back to attract the support of moderate Democrats in the Senate. The end result was a package of reforms meant to loosen up bank laws that stopped short of several major changes proposed in the original House bill. What Has Changed Thanks to Trump? The big change from the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act was letting smaller banks off the hook on many of the regulations in Dodd-Frank. The original act applied its most stringent standards to any bank that had $50 billion in assets or more, whereas the 2018 law lifted that standard to $100 billion for 18 months and to $250 billion down the line for many banks. The goal was to make it easier for small or midsize banks — which hypothetically wouldn’t bring down the entire economy should they collapse — to do more lending and save money on stress testing. However, many of the important aspects of Dodd-Frank remain firmly in place, particularly for big banks with over $250 billion in assets. 1. Smaller Banks Don't Need to Perform Stress Tests Stress testing is meant to ensure that banks are adequately prepared for unexpected downturns. It involves running a computer simulation of such an event and analyzing the impact on each bank’s balance sheet. Not only did banks have to undergo an annual test conducted by the Federal Reserve, but they also had to conduct their own semiannual internal tests and report the results. Under the new law, banks with less than $250 billion in assets are no longer subject to these regular stress tests. 2. Volcker Rule Doesn't Apply to the Smallest Banks https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/trump-deregulating-banks-heres-what-means-you-2019-02-12
超过25万的要等清算资产后，不知能拿回多少，都到要清算的程度，这银行周三还好好的，这也太快了。😵💫
缺粮但没钱啊？ 气候紊乱，灾害频发，全球缺粮即将引发的是难民潮。
为啥缺粮？ 主要是买不起！ 你根本就是逻辑不清，思路混乱。
再倒几家，fdic也没钱了该怎么办？
看来CS不行了
动动脑子吧，气候紊乱灾害频发，以及农业出产国俄乌打仗才是缺粮的因
这也太坑了。start-up 本来就很惨了，还被这么搞一下，估计得搞死一批。昨晚有些VC 就叫自己的start up 转钱了，就是不知道有多少跑出来了。
什么意思？start-up从银行里发钱？
SVB叫小银行？？？这是湾区所有企业用的最多的银行之一了吧？？？
这可不是什么不专业的小银行
挺好的 总是叫着经济危机要来要来，有生之年怎么也得见证一次。08年那次还是学生完全没感觉。
弯曲过去几年吊打这个吊打那个，投资公司倒闭其他地方的拍手称快泥
美国这么喜爱印度 这次让印度接个盘呗
这家银行的倒下对于其客户，股东当然是很大的伤害。 这一次，几个大银行的balance sheet很健康，不用过度担心再发生一次金融危机啦。如果会发生多米诺骨牌效应，regulator不会这么快就能让这个银行倒下。现在开始清算了，就说明已经在regulator掌控中了。
Washington mutual,久远的名字，08年的疯狂
前面不有人说了吗？今天start up薪水就发不出来了。 等auditor lawyer regulator来start up可能已经倒了一片，员工们到处银行提钱，卖股票了。
washington mutual可不疯狂，挺好一银行，被拖累的
business账户保额和个人账户上限不同
疯狂的是08年的次贷
银行有一种服务是代发工资。就是公司把钱存银行，然后把工资发放名单给银行，银行打钱到员工账户。现在这种情况，存的钱都被冻结了，没法发了。
哦，谢谢
别谢我。钱的事，自己一定要去make sure。我说的也是根据2008年的经验之谈，那么多年了，有无变化无法保证。
不管怎样，这些高管的包裹奖金是一分钱不能少的
昨晚VC就叫start up 把钱转出来了，bank run 已经不可避免。FDIC 必须出手。
肯定的！
不光是湾区了
同想知道，网上直接转账，还是要去银行转？ 富国银行这次没大问题吗？他家一直说有问题，我们家钱都在这家存着，一直很担心。
是的。大多都是commercial account得，大于25万多的去了。FDIC可以卖asset回来一点钱，然后赔给他们一些。还有一个办法就是还有很多剩下得10年得MBS，等10年等mature 了value = par了，再卖掉。就是这些可怜公司要等个10年。
你看，现在就是市场恐慌了，其实就他们一家有问题，搞得大家都无辜受累，鸡犬不宁得。
公司有1/15的钱存在这家银行了。
问题是富国一直负面新闻不断，我们好几次想转走的
负面新闻不断说明这个银行一直在媒体，regulator的关注下，反而有雷的可能性小啊。最可拍的就是看上去光鲜亮丽，结果一爆就是个大雷。
问题市场恐慌也不是瞎恐慌， 现在小道消息都可准可准了，早取钱的能取到，晚取钱的两手空，你不怕啊
硅谷银行的倒闭是一个“孤立事件” until it isn't
一堆starup，没钱了立刻就要死，10年怎么等得起
还10年呢，twitter这种大公司，现在的现金流也只能维持4个月，之后没有额外资金进来，也是破产一条路
昨晚太晚了。 昨天下午两点以后钱就出不了了。
svb是全美弟15大银行。
下周才发薪水吧
不算大银行，连LCR都不受regulation的银行。
你是高于25万？ 不高于的话，没啥好担心的啊。
说老实话，我不太怕，我就是银行treasury做的，SVB是自己不好倒闭的，大部分银行都不是SVB，把depositors的钱都用来投资investment了，而且他们的depositors还是以fintech commercial accounts为主，是non-stable funding。大部分银行风控绝对比它做的好多了。
哈哈，我本意就是他们可怜呀，虽说这是一个办法，能有几个公司能等10年的。
你在瞎说，大部分银行的风控在fed连续加息的情况下都和svb区别不大，关键是那几个评级公司，不过08年那几个公司也没敢把美国国债降级，相关tech公司债如果被降级的话，其它银行马上就会受影响
我瞎扯个头，其他银行能超过50% deposit都是VC，fintech 这样的小公司吗。 其他银行能asset side 超过60%的资产都是investment上面，而不在loan上面吗？ 其他超过250billion asset的银行能不做LCR和NSFR这样的liquidity regulation report吗？SVB因为小，钻了漏洞，这些都没有被regulated，虽然不正常，但没有被external monitored， 内部也不重视，觉得赚钱就好。其他银行再fed连续升息的情况下就顶的住liquidity压力，SVB就不行，和他的banlance sheet模式就有关。 什么关键是评级公司，什么乱七八糟的。一般公司的评级如果被调整下来了以后，肯定会内部liquidity紧张，一般会把存银行的钱取走，或是增加贷款额度。一两个tech 公司的评级调整，一般银行随时准备好有大额deposit被取走的情况的。如果整个tech行业都有cash的问题，那么做的好的银行在很多tech 公司银行取走钱的情况下，都有应对措施。比如在借钱的时候，depositor就不能是一种类型的，就不能是问单一行业里的人借钱。或者HQLA，就是在asset side要持有很多高流动性的investment ，比如t-bill，虽然yield低了点，银行的盈利少了点，但是突发事件，比如depositor撤资，可以马上卖掉变现。因为tbill duration小，就算fed 一直升息，tbill的价值变动也不大，卖的时候不会大亏损。像SVB买的investment都是MBS还是long duration 的MBS，fed 一升息，价格马上掉下来，就算卖也是血本无归的。这些balance sheet structure的布局都可以避免破产，当然每年银行的profit会变小。
有这么夸张吗？ 吓人啊
说到底，一个是贪；一个是Risk control 走了形式。一开始investment 的allocation 就有问题。然后fed 开始生息，又怕割肉想熬过去，把自己熬死了。
嘉兴是吓唬大家，希望有人（或者联邦）救场。因为YC portfolio 下面有30%的公司有major exposure to SVB。对YC不见得是ELE，但是partner 分红肯定打水漂了。
这很好理解，银行包括各种企业都是profit driven，risk management这块本来就是花钱的部门，lcr的要求是250b，他家是200b出头，regulator都不要求的谁会主动做？SVB这个事件后，fed会加强regulation？至少会觉得风控不是走形式，银行还真的需要
The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 Regulated Banks The Obama administration enacted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 to help avoid future meltdowns in financial markets — and the massive government bailouts that follow. Essentially, the law recognized that many banks are so important to the economy that they must be rescued from complete collapse in times of trouble. Dodd-Frank identified certain banks as being systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) that need to operate by certain rules to protect their assets. These rules prevent banks that take customer deposits from making risky bets on the financial markets, mandate the size of banks’ capital reserves — or how much cash they have on hand — and require banks to perform routine “stress tests” that simulate a crisis to see if they can remain solvent.
Dodd-Frank Was an Unpopular Law There’s an old saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. By that standard, the Dodd-Frank Act might have been a master stroke. The law has been roundly criticized by the banking industry and many conservatives for over-restricting banks and making it harder to stimulate economic growth with more lending. At the same time, it has also been the target of ire from liberals who feel that Dodd-Frank didn’t go nearly far enough in limiting banks from risky behavior. Part of the problem is that — until there’s another major crisis — it’s difficult to know for sure whether the rules were too hard on banks, not hard enough or some sort of regulatory Goldilocks that was just right in fostering growth but also protecting the economy. Trump Deregulates Banks in 2018 In May 2018, a rare bipartisan bargain resulted in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act getting signed into law by Trump. The final bank deregulation bill was a compromise — the previous version passed the House of Representatives in 2017, but it had to get rolled back to attract the support of moderate Democrats in the Senate. The end result was a package of reforms meant to loosen up bank laws that stopped short of several major changes proposed in the original House bill. What Has Changed Thanks to Trump? The big change from the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act was letting smaller banks off the hook on many of the regulations in Dodd-Frank. The original act applied its most stringent standards to any bank that had $50 billion in assets or more, whereas the 2018 law lifted that standard to $100 billion for 18 months and to $250 billion down the line for many banks. The goal was to make it easier for small or midsize banks — which hypothetically wouldn’t bring down the entire economy should they collapse — to do more lending and save money on stress testing. However, many of the important aspects of Dodd-Frank remain firmly in place, particularly for big banks with over $250 billion in assets.
1. Smaller Banks Don't Need to Perform Stress Tests Stress testing is meant to ensure that banks are adequately prepared for unexpected downturns. It involves running a computer simulation of such an event and analyzing the impact on each bank’s balance sheet. Not only did banks have to undergo an annual test conducted by the Federal Reserve, but they also had to conduct their own semiannual internal tests and report the results. Under the new law, banks with less than $250 billion in assets are no longer subject to these regular stress tests. 2. Volcker Rule Doesn't Apply to the Smallest Banks https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/trump-deregulating-banks-heres-what-means-you-2019-02-12
08-09年以后regulation也是加强了很多，特别对250b以上的银行，可是每次暴雷都有新的幺蛾子出来，这次是这种稍微小点的做VC客户的中型银行，这次影响没有08大，但也算有点影响了，感觉防不胜防。
你说的克林顿看看他当时出的政策现在看来都是妥妥右派，包括对学校的改革，只不过这几年越来越左，越来越妖才搞到如今这个田地
2018-2019年de regulation不少，尤其是对小银行。
政府不适当监管，就和火车脱轨一样，越来越多事故。 这就是资本主义的本性。
川皇干的好事儿