According to a new report, one of the major banks that recently had to be shut down, Signature Bank, had previously declined to do business with former President Trump.
The news that the bank had been shut down by officials from the state of New York came on Sunday, only two days after the Silicon Valley Bank, which was situated in California, failed.
Concerns have been raised as a result of the activities that unsettled depositors may try to withdraw their funds from other lenders around the country.
A stunning move which could result in the instability of the financial system.
Back in 2021, though, Signature Bank did not desire the business of former President Trump, who is a billionaire.
As of the end of 2022, it was reported that Signature Bank had a total asset value of $110.4 billion, including a significant investment in the highly volatile cryptocurrency market, and total deposits of $88.6 billion.
After the action taken on Sunday by state regulators, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation assumed management of the bank.
The failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the sixteenth-largest lender in the United States, was the most significant failure of a bank since 2008.
On Sunday, federal officials reiterated their stance that Silicon Valley and Signature Bank will compensate all of the bank’s depositors in full.
It was not entirely obvious how depositors would be able to get their money back. Although the FDIC covers deposits up to a maximum of $250,000, it is thought that Silicon Valley Bank had huge cash reserves for a variety of clients, including venture capitalists, wineries, and IT businesses.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen added more confusion to the situation when she stated on a Sunday morning TV broadcast that there will be no rescue for Silicon Valley Bank.
Both Silicon Valley and Signature banks were strong proponents of policies, which prioritized the promotion of woke world-views over the pursuit of maximum financial gain.
[READ MORE: Federal Regulators Forced To Shut Down Major Financial Institution After Bank Run]
And…Signature Bank had had Barney, the banking queen, on their board of governors. Sweet!
Will janet yellen auto-euthanize now that she’s been shown to be little more than a fecal speck of on the window to the future. Please say yes!
It appears the Lord is answering prayers all over the place. This, Fetterman, Howdy Duty Mitch, and on, and on.
Don’t know exactly what this article is trying to explain/express?
So, these two banks went down. Now, way back when, when the FDIC was soo proudly unveiled, the idea (as I have always understood it) was that banks would volantarily join this organization and basically pay dues. So, although the governmnent administrates this basically “insurance policy”, none of the money to gaurantee cosutomers deposits would be funded by tax payer dollars directly. Rather, the “gaurantee” would be funded by dues paid by each institution that joined. i.e. the whole plan would be funded by depositers that chose each institution as their depository of choice. Seemed like a pretty good idea back then. So, if my understanding is correct, there should be no question of a government bail out. The mechanism should just work to gaurantee depositers funds. So, the hububb about bail outs should be moot. However, the question I see no one asking is “did these banks circumvent the rules of the original covenent of the FDIC. That should be answered.
And lastly, what in the hell does any of this have to do with SVB’s unwillingness to do business with Donald Trump years ago? Seems to me like a turd hunt headline. Therefore, I’m paying no attention to it, as it has no relevence the facts.
Were these defunct banks not heavily invested in CRYPTOcurrency? When the Mad Indian hit the servers praising and promoting CRYPTO, I just deleted him as the most NON-transparent hawker on the Internet.