Posted on 03/12/2023 9:23:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Over at Etsy, however, it was a different story, according to CNBC.
“We wanted to let you know that there is a delay with your deposit that was scheduled for today,” the email from Etsy said.
Etsy used Silicon Valley Bank to pay vendors who sell on the site and had to halt those payments Friday when the bank’s assets were seized.
“We know that you count on us to help run your business and we understand how important it is for you to receive your funds when you need them,” the email said. “Please know that our teams are working hard to resolve this issue and send you your funds as quickly as possible.”
The Silicon Valley Bank collapse is hitting moms and other small business owners who sell online on Etsy.
The Brooklyn-based commerce site notified shop owners that the deposits they were expecting Friday would be delayed “because of the recent developments regarding Silicon Valley Bank, who Etsy uses to facilitate disbursements to some sellers.”
The news led some shop owners to “freak out” and others to contemplate putting their storefronts on pause.
“They’re saying they’re going to try to pay us on Monday, but they’re not sure. So they’re just holding our funds and not paying us and that’s a little scary. Like I’m freaking out,” one Etsy seller vented on TikTok.
“I’m a mom of three. I run a small business,” said Amber Fields, 32, of Louisville, Ky.
Fields, who sells stickers, drinkware and T-shirts under the name Little Miss Lovely Creations, added, “Those funds feed my family and pay my bills.”
Another woman on TikTok with the user name amgeee1 said she had been an Etsy seller since 2015 and the delay could be devastating to her finances.
“I have to pay my mortgage in a few days, and I can’t because they have my money on hold,” she said.
What was stopping them from purchasing private deposit insurance?
That’s why the Fed is bailing out SVB. But they’re not using the “b” word. Even though that’s what they’re doing.
Here come the sob stories. Tales of struggling mom & pop victims, so as to justify the bailout of millionaires and billionaires.
The money is coming from banks not directly from taxpayers; meaning, perhaps, those who deal with credit unions won’t pay it?
I remember during the housing crash one of the networks did a story on a woman that was about to lose her home.
She drove a bus. Had her daughter and grandkids living with her.
House had to be at least $500k. Somewhere in Texas I think.
The real estate scams that were running, leading up to the crash were ridiculous.
Start-Ups...when someone invests in a start-up there’s a chance they’ll lose their money. But Wall St has figured out a way to make sure no one loses anymore and the clowns in Congress go along with it.
If the government says taxpayers won’t lose money, it means taxpayers will lose money.
Credit Unions have the “NCUA” (similar to bank’s FDIC), CU’s unaffected by this debacle.
Taxpayers will pay thru increased FDIC premiums on banks....banks will respond with lower interest rates paid, increased fees and/or higher interest on loans.
All these billions of dollars just disappeared?
These sorts of thing take on a life of there own. The Crash is coming folks.
Thanks for posting all that.
The U.S. is in such a bad shape I wonder if it’s good for Trump to lose to not have things explode when he is in charge.
Don’t believe that. It’s coming from the taxpayers
If I'm understanding this correctly, then no.
The bank's billions were tied up in bonds that had to be held to maturity to return their full value. Because interest rates went up so fast, those bonds that were purchased with low yield rates are worth less than bonds that are purchased today.
On paper, that meant that the bank had a negative balance sheet when marked to market, but the balance sheet would resolve itself as the bonds matured over time. However, as depositors started withdrawing their money, SVB was forced to sell those bonds at a loss to get the cash to pay out to the depositors. To make up those losses, SVB tried to raise capital by offering new bonds but were unable to do so. Word spread about this failure to raise capital, and the run on the bank ensued.
That's when California regulators stepped in, and then the FDIC took over the bank.
It appears that what's happening now is that the Treasury Department is going to let SVB use its bonds as collateral against a loan, but those bonds are not going to be assessed at their current market value -- Treasury is going to accept them at maturity value, basically ignoring their unrealized loss. If SVB pays back the Treasury loan, then nothing happens; if they can't then Treasury takes possession of those bonds and then ties up taxpayer money from more valuable use until the bonds mature and Treasury is made whole.
I do note the irony in that Democrats want to tax our unrealized gains, but are willing to ignore SVB's unrealized losses.
-PJ
if they can’t then Treasury takes possession of those bonds and then ties up taxpayer money from more valuable use until the bonds mature and Treasury is made whole.
- - - - - - -
So when Yellen claimed taxpayers won’t lose money, she became a pre first year econ student and forgot the concept of opportunity cost? When Yellen taught Econ at harvard, did she not teach about opportunity cost?
-PJ
You can bet on it!
Chicken Little has already left town with a suitcase full of Benjamins.
Nope, when rates rose the bonds backing the obligations decline in value because they were mostly ~2-2.5% 5 year + treasuries and no one wants to buy a 2.5%, long T-bill when they can buy a new one for the same principle that yields double...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.