MY THOUGHTS ON SILICON VALLEY BANK COLLAPSE

[Jason Malabute]

The following are my thoughts on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and any thoughts of upcoming bailouts. As an advocate for responsible financial practices, I believe that the government should not bail out banks that collapse due to their own risky investments. Such bailouts not only create moral hazard but also set a dangerous precedent that banks can engage in reckless behavior with little or no consequences.

Depositors should not be bailed out for savings over the $250,000 FDIC limit because they should share the risk of banking with a particular institution. When depositors place all their cash in one bank, they are essentially placing all their eggs in one basket, which can be risky. Therefore, it is important for depositors to diversify their savings across multiple institutions to mitigate risk. Additionally, depositors should consider investing their money in assets like real estate, which can provide long-term returns and mitigate the risks that come with being too liquid. Ultimately, depositors should take responsibility for their financial decisions and not rely on the government to bail them out in the event of a bank failure.

When the government bails out a bank, it sends a message that the bank's risky investments were acceptable and that taxpayers should bear the cost of the bank's mistakes. This creates a moral hazard, where banks are encouraged to engage in risky behavior with the knowledge that the government will bail them out if things go wrong. This, in turn, puts taxpayers at risk and undermines the integrity of the financial system.

Moreover, when the government bails out a bank, it effectively rewards poor financial management and risk-taking. This sends the message that there are no consequences for engaging in such behavior, which can ultimately lead to a culture of complacency and a lack of accountability in the banking sector.

In addition to the moral hazard, bailing out banks can also be costly for taxpayers. The funds used to bail out a failing bank are typically drawn from the public coffers, meaning that taxpayers foot the bill.

As a real estate investor, I am aware that financial distress in the market can create great buying opportunities. An economic downturn can create great buying opportunities in commercial real estate for savvy investors. When the market is down, sellers are more flexible on price and terms, and may be more willing to negotiate seller financing or other creative financing options. Additionally, there is likely to be less competition from other buyers as money may be less accessible. This can be particularly beneficial for real estate investors who have preexisting relationships with investors who have cash, creativity, and resourcefulness, allowing them to take advantage of market opportunities that others may miss. Ultimately, an economic downturn can be a great time for investors to acquire high-quality assets at a discount and position themselves for long-term success in the real estate market. With that said, as a real estate investor I would be extra careful with what banking institution I do business with and put my reserve money in moving forward.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that banks and depositors should not be bailed out over the FDIC amount. Bailing out banks creates moral hazard, sets a dangerous precedent, and can be costly for taxpayers. As a society, we should encourage responsible financial practices and hold banks accountable for their actions, rather than rewarding them for their mistakes.