Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year

[jhungary]

FDIC set a minimum of 1.35% reserve ratio for insured deposits, while Dott Frank Act requires minimum of 1.35% reserve for all deposits. That actually makes a big difference as we found out that 88% of all deposit in SVB are uninsured, as in deposit above the FDIC 250.000 limit. Both SVB and Signature are instrumental in their lobbying effort that removed the Dott Frank Act requirement for medium to small banks.

Again, you are talking about regulating banks.

As I asked, what else can the Fed do to avert this except regulate what bank can or cannot invest? And they can't actually do that. regulation only works if they are enforceable, and I don't see how Supreme Court or Federal Court can allow such act to include how the Fed dictate banking investment.

On the other hand, Dodd-Frank (Not Dott-Frank act) limited on risky investment (Yield and risk) and access of money by putting investment transparency on the line and streamline regulation process, so the bank can't have hidden agenda. it wouldn't work on SVB even if they were not partially repealed because as you said, SVB invested in Bond, which does not consider risky by Dodd-Frank act.

Finally, both SVB and Signature are NOT federal licensed bank. SVB licensed by California State, and Signature licensed by New York State, the number for the Fed are meaningless. Because FSOC won't do anything.

As I said, yes a little oversight would have the problem noticed earlier but it wouldn't revert it. Again, deposit is also an investment, especially if you are making over the FDIC limit, YOU, no one else, have the responsibility to choose which investment you get into, it's the same whether or not you buy margin or put 250 grand into bank, it's not ma's and pa's deposit, you need to ask what your bank is doing with your money, if you don't, unless they are doing something illegal with it, that's your responsibility on your own investment, I mean, there is a reason why they offer better package than the other bank, and if you don't know anything about that and dove in that investment without notifying the risk, that's basically your fault. As I said, if you ask for it and they don't let you know or lied to you, then and only then it's their fault.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Hopefully tech sector will regain it part in the economy..recent crack down will end I hope

Don't think so.
Xi Jinping has already forced him to breakup Alibabas other groups they own. Lol Alibaba will only become smaller and cut to size, dont think they will be part of the other big chinese internet companies going forward.
Seems they really passed Xi jinping/the government. I think now Jack Ma knows his place. piss the CCP and find out.. just need to plead for mercy

Alibaba breaks itself up in six

Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China’s tech crackdown

www.economist.com