I think greed and bankruptcy exist not only in the banking sector but also in the crypto industry. Excessive greed and risk-taking can actually lead to financial losses and negative outcomes for individuals or businesses engaged in any financial endeavor, including cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies, while offering potential opportunities, also come with their own risks, including market volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and cybersecurity threats. Engaging in speculative or overly risky behavior without proper knowledge and risk management can lead to financial failure.
The bankruptcy is not the phenomenon of the crypto industry.Because when the bank doesn’t have money to settle the investor,it will get the help of the central bank.If the crypto project was closed,then no central bank is their to support the project dead.When you want to get more money,you can hold till the all time high.But with your greedy,you should not take advantage and hold till the project ends.It will make you to lose all your investment with the fake trust. 
Topic: If they have the solution, why are banks still failing? (Read 769 times)
Some banks have political connections. The owner of the bank might be a politician or have sympathy for a political party. So they can give uncollateralized loans to politicians to fund elections. It becomes a bad debt if such a politician losses the election. This will make the bank face some problems. Another political influence is that the ruling party can decide to witch-hunt a bank that is connected to an opposition party. They will come up with different allegations just to ensure that the bank falls. The best form of banking system will always be a decentralized one that is not connected to any country or government. This is why Bitcoin remains the best option because it is transnational and doesn't depend on any government to operate.
Regardless of what the OP said and What's worse, bank owners trade their customers' money into digital assets or stocks. with reason to play first. if it's ok, the rotation rotates and what happens if the price drops or collapses at that time. Customers wonder why we can't withdraw our money. Yes. They have everything they need because it is stored in their database and if we use crypto this is the difference as you say OP. Yes, everything wants to be easy and safe.
Some banks have political connections. The owner of the bank might be a politician or have sympathy for a political party. So they can give uncollateralized loans to politicians to fund elections. It becomes a bad debt if such a politician losses the election. This will make the bank face some problems. Another political influence is that the ruling party can decide to witch-hunt a bank that is connected to an opposition party. They will come up with different allegations just to ensure that the bank falls. The best form of banking system will always be a decentralized one that is not connected to any country or government. This is why Bitcoin remains the best option because it is transnational and doesn't depend on any government to operate.
Banks still continue to fail despite of having solutions in place, one of the main reasons is the ever revolving landscape which makes it difficult for banks to keep up with changing regulations, technologies, and customer needs. Another reasons is the increasing competition from non bank financial institutions, which is often more agile and innovative than traditional banks. Banks face several challenges in implementing their solutions effectively. Some banking systems and outdated technology can hinder their ability to offer modern banking services and products. Banks need to balance the need for profitability with customer satisfaction which can be a delicate balancing act. While banks have solutions in place to address many challenges, implementing them effectively and navigating the complex financial landscape remains a challenge.
I think greed and bankruptcy exist not only in the banking sector but also in the crypto industry. Excessive greed and risk-taking can actually lead to financial losses and negative outcomes for individuals or businesses engaged in any financial endeavor, including cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies, while offering potential opportunities, also come with their own risks, including market volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and cybersecurity threats. Engaging in speculative or overly risky behavior without proper knowledge and risk management can lead to financial failure.
On the other hand, the failure of a bank can have serious consequences, affecting not only the bank but also its customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Restoring the reputation of individuals or businesses involved in a failed bank can be challenging. In both traditional banking and the crypto space, it is important for individuals to educate themselves, understanding the risks involved in their finances.
On the other hand, the failure of a bank can have serious consequences, affecting not only the bank but also its customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Restoring the reputation of individuals or businesses involved in a failed bank can be challenging. In both traditional banking and the crypto space, it is important for individuals to educate themselves, understanding the risks involved in their finances.
I think it's very natural that in business there are accidents and then they fail, even though the bank. even we ourselves must have witnessed many failed businesses, and not the least of which were banks that went bankrupt or they disappeared with customer money. even if it's the greatest bank in the world, I'm sure they can fail, because of that we can't stick to one solution in solving problems.
Yes, that's the reality, that banks can go bankrupt, then where you can save the value of your assets and diversify it, if not bitcoin as a solution, they manage a lot of money and they are destroyed by money, fatal mistakes in managing the company's finances any company can sink, including basing as a service industry finance.Unfortunately there is no solution even if you get help, because indeed the loss due to the negligence of SVB is very high and customers draw massively, so to cover from bankruptcy.
What is clear is that we have to learn from what happens to SVB, saving money in banks in addition to being affected by inflation and the cost of storage services also has the potential to lose money when bankruptcy occurs in other banks like this.
It can be said that banks play an important role in the economy. The easy thing is that we can see from the amount of credit that banks give to entrepreneurs. When they give credit, they can get interest of 15 to 20 percent per year, while they give interest to consumers only 8% per year.
Having worked in finance for nearly two decades now, one thing that I've come to learn is that you can't trust banks. Not the big huge banks anyhow, there is a difference between them and major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America etc.
Banks are corrupt, and I don't believe they have the moral capability to ever help make things right for others besides themselves.
Banks are corrupt, and I don't believe they have the moral capability to ever help make things right for others besides themselves.
But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.
I'm going to argue that they do have the knowledge and experience — until they get too greedy and try to maximize revenues of the company. Greed is that one thing that can royally fuck someone up regardless of knowledge/experience, and no one is 100% safe from it. Hence, bitcoin > banks.
Greed is what destroys everyone, not only banks, I think, in crypto, we can also experience bankruptcy if we are too greedy.
one more valuable experience is failure, but if the bank has failed it is difficult to return and the person concerned with the failure of the bank will find it difficult to improve his reputation
I think it's very natural that in business there are accidents and then they fail, even though the bank. even we ourselves must have witnessed many failed businesses, and not the least of which were banks that went bankrupt or they disappeared with customer money. even if it's the greatest bank in the world, I'm sure they can fail, because of that we can't stick to one solution in solving problems.
Many people continue to use and trust banks for their financial needs, and not all banks experience the same problems or failures. Banks play an important role in facilitating financial transactions by providing services such as deposits, loans, and payment systems widely used by individuals and businesses. While some banks may face challenges, that does not mean that all banks will experience the same problems or fail. But even so, it will really continue because they are all hand-in-hand with the government that exists. It can last much longer, but the limitation is still a fatal drawback. So bitcoin was created to replace it.
But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.
A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing, sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients. If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.
Fractional reserve banking means banks hold only a fraction of customer deposits as reserves and use the rest for lending and other activities. Normally, this system works well, but it can become problematic if a large number of depositors withdraw their funds simultaneously. A financial institution's leadership and management are ultimately responsible for its health and stability. Risk assessment and mitigation, regulatory compliance, and governance structures are part of their responsibilities. Failures, however, can occur for a variety of reasons, not always at the hands of the CEO.
A bank's management must take preventive measures and manage risk effectively in order to prevent client panic from contributing to failure. However, due to the complexity and dynamic nature of the banking sector, it's impossible to eliminate all risks completely.
But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.
A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing, sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients. If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.
But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.
A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing, sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients. If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.
The stock of Silicon Valley Bank, one of the biggest banks in the US collapsed to 65% before trading was halted. This is the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.
The bank's parent failed to get a buyer making the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation close Silicon Valley Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Customers were scared and began to pull out their funds to avoid unforeseen circumstances.
Economists are warning that the fall of SIVB might spread and have a bad effect on the entire banking sector. The shares of many banks in the US and Europe dropped because of this incident. According to Reuter U.S. banks have lost over $100 billion stock market value in two days, with European banks losing around another $50 billion in value.
I have always seen bad news about the cryptocurrency industry making headlines in national and international newspapers. The government and bankers criticize the industry and portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world. SVB recorded six straight quarterly losses, why didn't these financial gurus fix the bank? Yet they claim to be the only solution.
https://www.investors.com/news/silicon-valley-bank-liquidity-crisis-sends-shockwaves-through-financial-industry/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-bank-stocks-add-losses-regulators-shutter-svb-financial-2023-03-10/
The bank's parent failed to get a buyer making the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation close Silicon Valley Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Customers were scared and began to pull out their funds to avoid unforeseen circumstances.
Economists are warning that the fall of SIVB might spread and have a bad effect on the entire banking sector. The shares of many banks in the US and Europe dropped because of this incident. According to Reuter U.S. banks have lost over $100 billion stock market value in two days, with European banks losing around another $50 billion in value.
I have always seen bad news about the cryptocurrency industry making headlines in national and international newspapers. The government and bankers criticize the industry and portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world. SVB recorded six straight quarterly losses, why didn't these financial gurus fix the bank? Yet they claim to be the only solution.
https://www.investors.com/news/silicon-valley-bank-liquidity-crisis-sends-shockwaves-through-financial-industry/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-bank-stocks-add-losses-regulators-shutter-svb-financial-2023-03-10/
The American banking system has long been like a task with many variables, where there are already too many of these variables. At the same time, we will add here factors of human psychology that are unpredictable (as the financial market is unpredictable) and add here that dollars can be issued at the click of your fingers and at the same time not be provided with gold. Plus, we will add local conflicts: warriors and climatic troubles. So it turns out that the banking system is fragile and poorly controlled in the USA. There are too many things in it that complicate relations: futures, the purchase of bonds, stocks, etc.
It should be simpler and more controlled by the government.
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?
Similar to some of the signals people use to judge the current situation as well as views about future direction, recent events represent a recessionary economic situation even before the organizations As the leading banks are still in such a risky situation, perhaps within a few months after the collapse of the silicon valley bank, people will also see the negative consequences that come with it.Personally, I think that any industry has potential risks, imbalances always exist and fragile things will not be able to maintain their existence, the story of the solution to overcome this problem here I think the stakeholders also see the problem, but have led to the failure, they also have no way to maintain it.
It's just a few banks that collapsed, not the entire banking industry, so we have nothing to look at. Banks are also business companies and they still compete with each other, the failure of some banks will be an opportunity for many others. So I think the government probably won't care much about this, and they won't intervene until things get worse. What is happening is just a total purge because in the past, many banks collapsed during the 2008 crisis, and things will continue to grow when the crisis is over.
That's true but the banks collapings aren't just unknown banks, they're popular ones that should be used as an example to other banks. The entire banking sector might not have collapse but the recent events proves banks aren't to be trusted. Many banks are doing unethical things with customers money like using them for forex trading and other investment that mightn't be profitable to the banks so they get into debts.
I believe the debits the banks are in are the major reason behind their closure because if they had no debit they won't have the challenges they had that made them to collapse. We'll always have banks so new ones will be launched soon and the cycle continues.
I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.
Do you think the collapse of some banks was planned already? 
I don't know how many banks are needed, not sure if we should have fewer banks only. However, more banks mean competition, that's leads to better service/quality for the banks because they want to be the best. If we have fewer banks, there will be higher domination or a monopoly of a few banks for the customers in certain areas. I don't think it will be a good sign for the future of banks.
If you believe that there is competition between banks, it means that there will be unfair competition because they are rivals. So the failure of a few banks is an advantage for the rest. Just like when you have a business or your competitor goes bankrupt, you will be glad you no longer have anyone to fight for customers. The collapse of a few banks does not indicate that the world banking system is in trouble or will collapse en masse.
I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.
Do you think the collapse of some banks was planned already? I don't know how many banks are needed, not sure if we should have fewer banks only. However, more banks mean competition, that's leads to better service/quality for the banks because they want to be the best. If we have fewer banks, there will be higher domination or a monopoly of a few banks for the customers in certain areas. I don't think it will be a good sign for the future of banks.
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?
I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.
Jump to: