GCR Has Started - Bank Failures Goes Int'l - UST Notes Released.

[Luigi1]

Here are some articles from Dinarland...

Bank failures goes international.

As of today the Federal Reserve notes are dead.

UST notes are the new US currency.

The GCR has started.

Treat as rumors.  Not verified.  Your opine.

 

 

Goldilocks:   The Banking System Has Quietened Down By The End Of Day Today, But It Is Far From Over.  

ARTICLE: A lot of large withdrawals were taken out of small Banks from customers today.   Statistics usually show up on the market a few days later.  They may show up by the end of the week or early next week.

Let’s see where we are at that time.  No more Federal  Reserve  Note. Now, it is called US Treasury Dollar.

 

 

Pimpy:   30 banks stock was halted on stock exchange today.

 

 

From Other Sources:    An Arab Country Announces That Its Banks Have Run Out Of Money.

ARTICLE:  The head of the Association of Lebanese Banks stated that commercial banks in Lebanon do not have sufficient liquidity to pay depositors.  The Secretary-General of the Assembly, Fadi Khalaf, according to Reuters, “These figures show beyond any doubt that the banks have no liquidity.”  





 

[coorslite21]

US Markets up substantially today......what a joke.....

Old Joe said all banks would be bailed out, now and in the future.....everyones money was safe...

 

And people believe him.....

Just crazy..... CL 

[Luigi1]

1 minute ago, coorslite21 said:

US Markets up substantially today......what a joke.....

Old Joe said all banks would be bailed out, now and in the future.....everyones money was safe...

 

And people believe him.....

Just crazy..... CL 

 

Everyone's money but theirs.

Bail ins means the banks will wait until we deposit our RV funds then steal it.

It's bad enough OBiden will tax us to death in a pone time super tax on the rich.

[Blitz]

50% tax? 

[HowieC]

So in reference to this bail in law...........Is  there any safe way in the U.S. to exchange? 

[WheresmyRV?]

14 minutes ago, HowieC said:

So in reference to this bail in law...........Is  there any safe way in the U.S. to exchange? 

I would like to know also.

[coorslite21]

Not sure there is a bail in law...I don't think anything went thru Congress.

 

Much like the student loan forgiveness Biden just waves the wand.....he did that for votes....

This one he did to prevent financial collapse....not legal...but more necessary.

 

Exchange taxes....In dealing with a US bank the currency event immediately becomes taxable when converted to USD. Multi currency accounts might become available that would include the IQD....none that I know of...

 

The difference in the right and left.....Trump would have let the people have all the money and it would have flowed into the economy taking care of many of the issues the US faces. Biden and the boys want the money so they can take care of you....they believe they are better at that than you are...

Just my thoughts....    CL 

[Luigi1]

2 hours ago, HowieC said:

So in reference to this bail in law...........Is  there any safe way in the U.S. to exchange? 

 

Do as the politicians & the crooks do...offshore accounts.

[Luigi1]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

Not sure there is a bail in law...I don't think anything went thru Congress.

 

Much like the student loan forgiveness Biden just waves the wand.....he did that for votes....

This one he did to prevent financial collapse....not legal...but more necessary.

 

Exchange taxes....In dealing with a US bank the currency event immediately becomes taxable when converted to USD. Multi currency accounts might become available that would include the IQD....none that I know of...

 

The difference in the right and left.....Trump would have let the people have all the money and it would have flowed into the economy taking care of many of the issues the US faces. Biden and the boys want the money so they can take care of you....they believe they are better at that than you are...

Just my thoughts....    CL 

 

OBiden made it perfectly clear...no more bank bailouts by the taxpayers.

What's the only option left...steal our money through a bail-in.

In the end, the banks will find a way to survive no matter at who's expense.

[Luigi1]

here's another article of Dinarian interests...

Blinken pleased with Kurd-Baghdad talks.

Treat as a rumor.  Not verified.  Your opine.

 

 

 

Tlm724 Admim BLC:    Barzani Receives A Letter From The US Secretary Of State.

ARTICLE:  The President of the Kurdistan Region, Nechirvan Barzani, received a message from US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, in which he expressed his happiness at the dialogue that took place between them at the Munich Security Conference held last February.  A statement issued by the regional presidency today, Tuesday, stated that the minister indicated that this was an opportunity to stress the need to find a final solution to the outstanding problems between Erbil & Baghdad through dialogue & understanding.  In his message, Blinken emphasized that solid cooperation & partnership link America with federal Iraq & the Kurdistan Region, expressing his country’s commitment & continuous support for Iraq & the stability, security & sovereignty of Iraq.

 

[HowieC]

 

Please watch short video of FDIC Bankers Discussing "Bail-Ins".

 

Yes, The Law was passed in 2010 to give the government the ability to go into your bank account and seize your money called "Bail In"

 

FDIC Bankers Discuss “Bail-Ins” | Landmark Capital Precious Metals (landmarkgold.com)

[Luigi1]

1 hour ago, HowieC said:

 

Please watch short video of FDIC Bankers Discussing "Bail-Ins".

 

Yes, The Law was passed in 2010 to give the government the ability to go into your bank account and seize your money called "Bail In"

 

FDIC Bankers Discuss “Bail-Ins” | Landmark Capital Precious Metals (landmarkgold.com)

 

We can thank Obama for the bail-ins.

Obama is running the country & controls OBiden.

Expect more of the same.

[fioranosportscars]

Both parties… are a mess… they both point the finger and then the naive fanatics think their party is doing a great job, when in reality they are both control by the establishment…🤣🤣🤣

[coorslite21]

20 hours ago, HowieC said:

 

Please watch short video of FDIC Bankers Discussing "Bail-Ins".

 

Yes, The Law was passed in 2010 to give the government the ability to go into your bank account and seize your money called "Bail In"

 

FDIC Bankers Discuss “Bail-Ins” | Landmark Capital Precious Metals (landmarkgold.com)

 

Good post Howie... 

 

There is a great deal of gray area in the Dodd Frank law.

First the linkage between Govt and The Central Bank...was much of it needed, and was it over reach....yes....and put it on Obama...

Pretty fine explanation follows.......CL

 

•  

 

From Bailouts to Bail-Ins: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act

 

by L. Carlos Lara

On the surface, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act 1 (January 21, 2010)—the most sweeping overhaul of the financial markets since the Great Depression— was created to provide increased preventive regulation in order to strengthen the financial markets in case of another 2008-type crisis. This new law specifically involves increased capital thresholds for financial institutions mirroring the cross-border framework and requirements of the Basel III International Reforms 2 that were formulated for the banking system of the European Union by the Bank for International Settlements. (See: The Lara-Murphy Report (LMR), May 2014 edition. “Bank Deposits Are Risky—Now More than Ever.”)

In addition to these requirements, the law also provides for an expedient liquidation process for any insolvent financial institution, including the regulatory tools to implement the liquidation. This process referred to as “Statutory Bail-Ins” includes expanded powers to the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whereby bank holding companies and significant non-bank holding companies can be placed in receivership under federal control with the FDIC acting as receiver under Title II of the Act.3

More importantly and because investors are an essential ingredient of capital markets, the Dodd-Frank Act is aimed specifically to increase Wall Street transparency and investor protection as a means of bolstering investor confidence to draw them back into the investing arena.

NO MORE BAILOUTS

Above all, the most affirming stance this new law makes is that “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions will not be bailed-out by taxpayer dollars this next time around. In and of itself this one caveat alone smacks of prudence on the part of our governing officials. After all it’s no secret that the bailouts created one the worst economic hazards for the helpless American taxpayer compared to any other financial reform to date; in no way was a financial dilemma rectified. Therefore, protecting taxpayer money became the principal priority of the new U.S. reform. What is incredibly ironic is that since this colossal law was enacted, the Federal Reserve and in fact, all world central bankers, have never been so brazen in their stimulus programs. The near-zero interest rates across all boarders continue to prod the sophisticated institutional investor, global market trader, and international investment banker to proceed with business as usual, employing high-risk investments and careless credit expansion similar to the period prior to 2008. Meanwhile the world debt bubble continues growing at an accelerated pace.

According to a recent financial report put out by McKinsey & Company (February 2015)4, global debt since 2007 has grown by $57 trillion raising the ratio of global debt to GDP by 17 percentage points. They estimate that as of the second quarter of 2014, the global debt to GDP ratio stood at 286%, compared to 269% back in the fourth quarter of 2007. The main thrust of the report is that the world as a whole has not “deleveraged” since the financial crisis of 2008, even though we all supposedly saw just how dangerous that leverage was.

In particular, household debt worldwide has exploded with debt-to-income ratios exceeding peak levels and 74% of household debt being directly tied to mortgages. The similarities, then to present circumstances are eerie. One is left to conclude that perhaps this one caveat in the new banking system rules—no more bailouts— has somehow created a false sense of security that our banking and government officials have their hands firmly on the steering wheel and we have no need to worry. Yet short of sheer madness what else can explain these unprecedented numbers in light of diminishing expectations of future economic growth?

The masses of society still remain uninformed regarding the particulars of the Dodd-Frank Act even five years since its enactment. But financial experts and economists who understand the details of this law are beginning to voice their doubts as to whether all this excessive regulation is warranted, or even if it can actually be enforced without creating an even more detrimental hazard to the entire economy at the time of the new crisis. At this point the only example we have of how a statutory bail-in would actually work are the results of the insolvencies of the two largest commercial banks in Cyprus, which occurred in March of 2013. In the end only one bank was actually shuttered and minimal taxpayer money was required. Consequently, government and banking officials were quite satisfied with the results of the bail-in process except that the stockholders, bank depositors, and the Cyprus economy did not fare all too well. (The larger stockholders of the bank exited before knowledge of the insolvency became public.) The latest news from Cyprus reported in a Wall Street Journal article 5 late last year is that the existing shareholders were almost completely wiped out and 21,000 bank clients who had deposits of more than 100,000 euros saw 47.5% of their unsecured savings converted to equity making them 81.4% owners of an insolvent bank. Unfortunately, the bank is now teetering on closing permanently if they can’t get a new infusion of capital to keep the doors open. But what leadership for the bank can be expected from depositors turned shareholders who really only want their money back?

WHO SHOULD MONITOR THE BANKS?

“Winding back clocks, or putting genies back in bottles, rarely can be done, but history shows that nations took a wrong turn when they abandoned bank shareholder double liability for a system of governmentally administered deposit insurance.”6 This is the strong commentary coming from a special report put out by the C.D. Howe Institute of Canada, a non-profit nonpartisan periodic analysis on current public policy issues.7 According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the basic flaws in the new rules for the financial system, such as Dodd-Frank and the Basel III International Reforms, are two-fold—in monitoring incentives and the increased role of deposit insurance, which currently insulates depositors and shareholders from some or most of the costs of an institution’s failure. The Institute points out that “until the mid-20th Century, banking regulation in the United States, Canada, the UK and elsewhere relied mostly on monitoring by shareholders and depositors.” In essence, before deposit insurance existed depositors were expected to keep a close eye on the banks that held their savings.

SHAREHOLDER DOUBLE LIABILITY

Prior to the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 senior bank managers of national banks were also the bank’s major shareholders and in the case of the bank’s failure they were personally liable for any of the net losses of the bank. The shareholders of deposit-taking institutions were not allowed to use the limited-liability corporate form of business even though it existed. Consequently, bankers and all shareholders of banks operated their banks with double-liability exposure. The principal reason for this double liability regulation was that it was well known that bankers have the legal capacity to use for their own benefit the funds they hold on behalf of others.

What the C.D. Howe report points out is that all through the 19th century and well into the 20th century, the records show that numerous deposit-taking institutions were generally small single-branch banks that could easily enter into a banking crisis associated with prolonged drought and crop failure. The picture we get is one of the proverbial “mom and pop shop.” Although bank runs were numerous, bank depositors—because of the double-liability of bankers—were usually made whole. As a general rule banking crisis were quick, short in duration, and localized.

Shareholder potential double liability in the running of a banking business was conceptually similar to what today is called “contingent capital,” found in the many modern hybrid debt securities that can provide immediate liquidity for a capital-starved business. The fact that the bank manager/owner faced serious liability in the event of failure would become a powerful incentive to convey, consolidate, or transfer the assets of his distressed bank to a more profitable banking entity, while his bank was still solvent. This would make for a much smoother reorganization.

There also existed legislation that prevented share transfers from being made sixty days before failure, which prevented bank owners from arranging their affairs to limit their personal exposure similar to what we found in Cyprus. This 60-day rule made voluntary liquidations more common in the banking system of that day and it far exceeded the number placed into liquidation involuntarily by bank regulators.

Given the benefits of bank shareholder double liability why did it disappear from practice in the U.S. and other countries to be supplanted with deposit insurance?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FDIC

In the U.S., banking expanded westward following the growth of railroads, land settlements, and the farm mortgage market. Along with that growth, bank shareholding grew as well, up to the stock market crash of 1929. With the market crash and the depression that followed, bank runs and bank failures increased taking down and exposing larger numbers of average Americans into the double liability consequences. The outcome was disastrous and politically damaging. It was the New Deal under President Roosevelt that first introduced the federal provision for deposit insurance to make depositors whole in newly failed banking institutions. With these developments double-liability in time became less politically attractive than deposit insurance and it soon faded from the U.S. rule books. It took more than a decade to be widely accepted in the United States and in other countries it took even longer. For example, federal deposit insurance in Canada was not created until 1967.

Is this to suggest that we should return to dual shareholder liability as a way to supplement current initiatives aimed at conduct regulation, capital adequacy and liquidity? The authors of the C.D. Howe Institute report realize this would not be possible in today’s world with financial institutions being so widely held and with shareholders having so very little influence on a financial institution’s board of directors. It does, however, strongly suggest that federal deposit insurance should not be expanded and should in fact be curtailed for the simple reason that it generates a lack of incentive on the part of the public to guard against bank mismanagement. In fact, the risk of moral hazard associated with deposit insurance was well understood at the time of its introduction, according to Howe. Its acceptance had more to do with maintaining public confidence in the banking system during unsettling economic times. Ironically, no single-liability state created a deposit insurance system, underscoring the fact that shareholders and managers were still expected to provide the real safety net.

CONCLUSION

We’ve drawn heavily from the C.D. Howe Institute’s report for a fresh historical perspective in order to help explain many of the dangerous eventualities of our modern day banking systems that have placed many individuals in harm’s way without their knowledge. Rereading my article, “Bank Deposits Are Risky—Now More Than Ever” in our May 2014 issue of the LMR can also be helpful in gaining a better understanding of what is in store for the public since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act if certain precautionary measures are not taken.

The crux of my previous article was to point out to our readers that statutory bail-ins, as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, amount to forcing a failed institution’s shareholders back into a similar double liability exposure situation should a financial institution fail—and by extension, the bank depositors as well. Can it be any more frightening than this? Is it really possible that our current laws could subject the public to this sort of unexpected dilemma? Unfortunately it is.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves that investors in bank shares can be just as naïve as an ordinary customer of a bank—i.e., a bank depositor. There is no financial expertise required to be either. Most likely neither are aware of the new rules governing our banking systems today and how easily they could be drawn into a financial quagmire of which they are ill equipped to handle. For sure neither the average bank shareholder nor bank depositor has any intention of ever running or owning a commercial bank by simply making a bank deposit or buying bank shares anymore than we would. Yet this all could change in the blink of an eye if that bank is declared insolvent and those individuals are a party to the insolvency in either of those roles. Unfortunately, the way our laws are set up today many could find themselves in the identical situation as the Cypriots.

The fact is that most bank depositors lose the incentive to watch over their savings in commercial banks account because deposit insurance assures them the government will return their money in case of a bank failure, while at the same time it allows banks to take on more care-less risks with depositor monies. Studies made by economist Demirgüç-**** and Detragiache of the World Bank Development Research Group find that “…deposit insurance tends to be detrimental to bank stability. The U.S. Savings & Loan crisis of the 1980s has been widely attributed to the moral hazard created by a combination of generous deposit insurance, financial liberalization, and regulatory failure…Thus, according to economic theory, while deposit insurance may increase bank stability by reducing self-fulfilling or information-driven depositor runs, it may decrease bank stability by encouraging risk-taking on the part of banks.”8

The most important thing to keep in mind is that banks are inherently susceptible to systemic risk simply because without a lender of last resort they operate on an illiquid basis at all times. During the 2008 crisis, 1,200 banks required assistance from the FDIC and it ran completely out of money, requiring help from the Treasury. Now the one rule in the entire Dodd-Frank Act that limits banks from engaging in hedge fund ownership and risky derivatives—the Volker rule—is on target to be completely repealed by a lobbyist group headed up by Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo. They have already succeeded in receiving an extension through 2017 for banks to continue their derivative business as usual.

Given the situation we hope you will agree that it’s time to do something about this at once. We should all be setting up an alternate warehouse for our money and begin the process of weaning ourselves from the precarious nature of our current commercial banking system and its new regulations. This new money headquarters should be in a completely different sector of the economy, away from the commercial bank/Wall Street sector. Specifically, it should be the insurance sector. Keep very little money in the banks, only enough to pay for current expenses. All excess cash flow should be swept into your alternate money warehouse where you will benefit from the safety, privacy, and control of the money you put in it, plus numerous other benefits to shield you from the uncertainty of our times. In an economic environment such as what we have today there is really no reason to delay. Please contact an Authorized IBC Practitioner today (at www.infinitebanking.org/Finder) to learn more about how to set up your own alternate money headquarters as soon as possible.

References
1. Brief Summary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf
2. Basel III International Reforms, Committee on Banking Supervision, Bank for International Settlements, Revised June 2011 http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs189.pdf, Liquidity Risk Monitoring, January 2013, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.pdf
3. On Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, American bankers Association, Copyright 2010, 1120, Connecticut Avenue Washington D.C. 20036, http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/RegReform/TItleIISummary.pdf
4. Debt and (not much) Deleveraging, by McKinsey & Company, February 2015 http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/debt_and_not_much_deleveraging
5. Bank of Cyprus’s Bail-in Blues, Wall Street Journal Article by Michalis Persianis, July 29, 2014 http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/29/bank-of-cypruss-bail-in-blues/March 1, 2015, 6:58 pm
6. “Shareholder Liability: A New (Old) Way of Thinking about Financial Regulation,” The C.D. Howe Institute, Commentary No. 401, February 2014, by Finn Poschmann. Search for Commentary 401.pdf at http://www.cdhowe.org
7. Shareholder Liability, The CD Howe Institute.
8. Does Deposit Insurance Increase Banking System Stability? An Empirical Investigation, by Asli Demirglic-**** and Enrica Detragiache, World Bank, Development Research Group, and International Monetary Fund, Research Department, November 1999, Download Report, Page 3 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629183&download=yes

 

View All BankNotes Articles

 

 

[coorslite21]

What's this really all about....right from co-author of Dodd-Frank....a sitting Board member of failed Signature Bank.

CL

 

 

 

 

NEWS

 

 

•  

by Jamie Redman

2 days ago

•  12322

Bank Board Member and Dodd-Frank Co-Sponsor Barney Frank Suspects 'Anti-Crypto' Message Behind Signature Bank Failure

Barney Frank, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts and leading co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, discussed his opinion on the recent failure of Signature Bank. In an interview, Frank stated that he believes regulators aimed to “send a very strong anti-crypto message.” Frank, who also serves as a Signature board member, explained that he was surprised by the financial institution’s demise.

The Third-Largest Bank Failure in U.S. History: Signature Bank’s Demise was Confusing to Company Executives

New York regulators from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced on Sunday evening that Signature Bank (SBNY) was shut down and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over as the bank’s receiver. The seizure was intended to “protect depositors,” said DFS superintendent Adrienne Harris. Unlike Silvergate Bank and Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature’s failure was somewhat confusing to some market observers and it was the third-largest bank failure in the United States.

On Sunday evening, superintendent Harris stated that as of December 31, 2022, Signature had about $110.36 billion in assets and total deposits of around $88.59 billion. According to Barney Frank, a Signature board member and former U.S. representative from Massachusetts, the bank’s failure was surprising to its executives. In a phone call interview with CNBC, Frank stated, “We had no indication of problems until we experienced a deposit run late Friday, which was solely due to contagion from SVB.”

Frank explained that concern began to spread last week as Signature’s customers began transferring deposits from the New York bank to larger financial institutions such as JPMorgan and Citigroup. Although the former politician saw “no real objective reason” for Signature to be seized and shut down, he suspected that U.S. regulators may have been sending a message.

“I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank stated. “We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.”

Frank also mentioned that withdrawals slowed on Sunday, and Signature executives believed the situation was resolved. Additionally, he asserted that the bank’s senior staff attempted to explore “all avenues” to resolve the financial institution’s liquidity issues. Frank was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which made significant changes to how U.S. banking and the financial regulatory system are currently conducted. However, the policy framework has been partially repealed, and some U.S. banks are exempt from the Dodd-Frank ruleset.

 

 

Jamie Redman

Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

 

 

 

[md11fr8dawg]

14 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

This new money headquarters should be in a completely different sector of the economy

I agree with this part of his accessment, but, Specifically, it should be the insurance sector, that one I have trouble with. Maybe some of our more asute finance guys can tell me what he is talking about.

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

What's this really all about....right from co-author of Dodd-Frank....a sitting Board member of failed Signature Bank.

CL

 

 

 

 

NEWS

 

 

•  

by Jamie Redman

2 days ago

•  12322

Bank Board Member and Dodd-Frank Co-Sponsor Barney Frank Suspects 'Anti-Crypto' Message Behind Signature Bank Failure

Barney Frank, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts and leading co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, discussed his opinion on the recent failure of Signature Bank. In an interview, Frank stated that he believes regulators aimed to “send a very strong anti-crypto message.” Frank, who also serves as a Signature board member, explained that he was surprised by the financial institution’s demise.

The Third-Largest Bank Failure in U.S. History: Signature Bank’s Demise was Confusing to Company Executives

New York regulators from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced on Sunday evening that Signature Bank (SBNY) was shut down and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over as the bank’s receiver. The seizure was intended to “protect depositors,” said DFS superintendent Adrienne Harris. Unlike Silvergate Bank and Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature’s failure was somewhat confusing to some market observers and it was the third-largest bank failure in the United States.

On Sunday evening, superintendent Harris stated that as of December 31, 2022, Signature had about $110.36 billion in assets and total deposits of around $88.59 billion. According to Barney Frank, a Signature board member and former U.S. representative from Massachusetts, the bank’s failure was surprising to its executives. In a phone call interview with CNBC, Frank stated, “We had no indication of problems until we experienced a deposit run late Friday, which was solely due to contagion from SVB.”

Frank explained that concern began to spread last week as Signature’s customers began transferring deposits from the New York bank to larger financial institutions such as JPMorgan and Citigroup. Although the former politician saw “no real objective reason” for Signature to be seized and shut down, he suspected that U.S. regulators may have been sending a message.

“I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank stated. “We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.”

Frank also mentioned that withdrawals slowed on Sunday, and Signature executives believed the situation was resolved. Additionally, he asserted that the bank’s senior staff attempted to explore “all avenues” to resolve the financial institution’s liquidity issues. Frank was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which made significant changes to how U.S. banking and the financial regulatory system are currently conducted. However, the policy framework has been partially repealed, and some U.S. banks are exempt from the Dodd-Frank ruleset.

TAGS IN THIS STORY

anti-crypto, Bank Failure, banking reform, banking regulations, Barney Frank, board member, CitiGroup, cnbc, contagion, Department of Financial Services, deposit run, depositors, DFS, Dodd-Frank Act, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Financial Crisis, financial industry, Financial Institutions, Financial News, financial regulatory system, financial stability, Insolvency, jpmorgan, liquidity problems, market observers, Massachusetts, New York regulators, policy framework, Regulatory Compliance, senior staff, Signature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank, U.S. banking, U.S. House of Representatives

What do you think about Barney Frank’s suspicion that regulators wanted to send an anti-crypto message by shutting down Signature Bank? Do you believe this is a fair assessment or is there more to the story? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Jamie Redman

Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

 

 

 

Study Finds El Salvador Remains One of the Countries Most Interested in Bitcoin

Meta Winding Down support system" rel="">support for NFTs on Facebook, Instagram

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

 

 PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Circle Partners With Cross River Bank, Handful of US ‘Crypto-Friendly’ Banks Remain; Okcoin Suspends USD Deposits

NEXT ARTICLE 

Robert Kiyosaki Warns of ‘Crash Landing Ahead’ as Bailouts Begin — Advises Buying More Bitcoin

DISCLAIMER

DISCUSSION

 

More Popular News

Robert Kiyosaki Warns of 'Crash Landing Ahead' as Bailouts Begin — Advises Buying More Bitcoin

ECONOMICS | 2 days ago

 

Bank Board Member and Dodd-Frank Co-Sponsor Barney Frank Suspects 'Anti-Crypto' Message Behind Signature Bank Failure

NEWS | 2 days ago

Bitcoin, Ethereum Technical Analysis: BTC Nearing $25,000 as Banks Face Exodus of Deposits

MARKET UPDATES | 1 day ago

Binance Converts $1 Billion BUSD Into Bitcoin, BNB, and Ethereum

NEWS | 2 days ago

SD Governor Urges 20 States to Block Legislation That Bans Crypto's Use as Money — Says 'Its a Threat to Our Freedom'

FEATURED | 1 day ago

Silicon Valley Bank Failure Highlights Dangers of Fractional-Reserve Banking

ECONOMICS | 3 days ago

 

Bitcoin.com in your inbox

Sign up

 

In Case You Missed It

Fidelity Investments Launches Crypto, Metaverse ETFs — Says 'We Continue to See Demand'

Fidelity Investments, one of the largest financial services firms with more than $11 trillion under administration, is launching exchange-traded funds (ETFs) focusing on the crypto ecosystem and the metaverse. "We continue to see demand, particularly from young investors, for access ... read more.

 

Bitcoin ATM Operator Indicted in New York Allegedly Running Illegal Business Attracting Criminals

 

FBI Issues Alert Concerning Malicious State-Sponsored North Korean Hackers Targeting Crypto Firms

 

Survey: Adoption in Argentina Grows, With 12 out of 100 Adults Having Invested in Crypto

 

Microbt Reveals Latest Bitcoin Mining Rigs — Machines Produce up to 126 TH/s With Custom 5nm Chip Design

 

In Case You Missed It

Ripple CEO: SEC Lawsuit Over XRP 'Has Gone Exceedingly Well'

The CEO of Ripple Labs says that the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against him and his company over XRP "has gone exceedingly well." He stressed: "This case is important, not just for Ripple, it’s ... read more.

 

NFT Sales Volume Saw a Small Uptick This Week — Moonbirds, Mutant Apes Take Top Sales

 

Survey: Adoption in Argentina Grows, With 12 out of 100 Adults Having Invested in Crypto

 

Digital Ruble ‘Much Needed,’ Russia’s Central Bank Says, Won’t Delay Testing

 

Iran to Increase Penalties for Unauthorized Cryptocurrency Mining

 

The Latest

• MARKET UPDATES | 1 hour ago
  Bitcoin, Ethereum Technical Analysis: BTC Hits 9-Month High, as ETH Moves Above $1,700
• NEWS | 1 hour ago
  Study Finds El Salvador Remains One of the Countries Most Interested in Bitcoin
• SPONSORED | 2 hours ago
  Agoras Leads the Way in AI-Based User-Controlled Cryptocurrency
• METAVERSE | 3 hours ago
  The Pokémon Company Might Be Preparing to Make Moves in the Metaverse
• NEWS | 5 hours ago
  Meta Winding Down support system" rel="">support for NFTs on Facebook, Instagram
• FEATURED | 7 hours ago
  Central Bank Digital Currency Transactions to Reach $213 Billion Annually by 2030, Research Shows
• MARKETS AND PRICES | 9 hours ago
  Mad Money Jim Cramer on BTC Price Surge: ‘I Would Sell My Bitcoin Right Into This Rally’
• FINANCE | 11 hours ago
  Signature Bank Closure Has Nothing to Do With Crypto, Says Regulator
• ECONOMICS | 13 hours ago
  Billionaire ‘Bond King’ Jeffrey Gundlach Expects Fed to Raise Rates Next Week — ‘That Would Be the Last Increase’
• NEWS | 15 hours ago
  Moody’s Downgrades US Banking Sector to Negative After Collapse of Three Major Banks

Most Popular

Robert Kiyosaki Warns of 'Crash Landing Ahead' as Bailouts Begin — Advises Buying More Bitcoin

ECONOMICS | 2 days ago

 

Bank Board Member and Dodd-Frank Co-Sponsor Barney Frank Suspects 'Anti-Crypto' Message Behind Signature Bank Failure

NEWS | 2 days ago

Bitcoin, Ethereum Technical Analysis: BTC Nearing $25,000 as Banks Face Exodus of Deposits

MARKET UPDATES | 1 day ago

Binance Converts $1 Billion BUSD Into Bitcoin, BNB, and Ethereum

NEWS | 2 days ago

SD Governor Urges 20 States to Block Legislation That Bans Crypto's Use as Money — Says 'Its a Threat to Our Freedom'

FEATURED | 1 day ago

Silicon Valley Bank Failure Highlights Dangers of Fractional-Reserve Banking

ECONOMICS | 3 days ago

Press releases

 

FNCT (Financie Token) Exceeds JPY 20 billion (USD 150 million) in...

Mar 14, 2023

Metacade’s Community-Driven GameFi Platform Raises Over $10M in Presale

Mar 14, 2023

BinaryX Releases Trailer and Opens Beta Test For Futuristic Space Game...

Mar 13, 2023

Bloxmith Launches Raiders Rumble, a Mobile Strategy Game for Both Web2...

Mar 13, 2023

 

Check all the news here

 

 

 

© 2023 Saint Bitts LLC
Bitcoin.com
All rights reserved.

Company

AboutAdvertiseCareersBlogContactPartnersSupportLegalSitemap

Get Crypto

Buy VerseBuy BitcoinBuy EthereumBuy Bitcoin CashBuy USDTBuy USDCBuy AvalancheBuy Polygon

Products & Services

Get StartedWalletVerse DEXDevelopersBitcoin Cash Register

Spend Crypto

Sell BitcoinCrypto MerchantsBitcoin Map

Bitcoin Data

Block ExplorerMarketsTools

Educate

Bitcoin WhitepaperGet StartedSatoshi's Archive

Follow

NewsTelegramYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

 

If SVB is insolvent, so is everyone else | Sovereign Research
https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/if-svb-is-insolvent-so-is-everyone-else-146244/