It has happened in different countries around the world and now some are saying it wasn't really a 'bank run' that happened with SVB but a 'bank sprint' perhaps. Also, various media reports are pointing the finger now at social media, specifically Twitter, for allegedly fanning the flames and potentially fueling the problem.
Is it social media opening up risks, as if any banks themselves don't ever operate in a risky manner?
Most people might not know that if they went to the bank to withdraw, along with many others, that there could be a problem.
Maybe this is a point that should be more widely circulated and the public should be made more aware of how banks operate with the money that you give them.
Some might not know that banks they are using could ever fail to meet depositor demands. Maybe that should be made more transparent? Would that have any difference in how consumers choose where they put their money?
Already some customers have said they are moving from SVB to more well-known institutions, their reputations give consumers more peace of mind that they won't meet the same fate. It has been reported that the collapse is already potentially triggering some changes in the Silicon Valley start up world too, along with other claims that the bank was allegedly 'grossly mismanaged'.
There is obvious fear that the problem could spread.
But fears have been calmed with a number of actions being taken by regulators to address the problem. Is the FED going to hike rates after this? Is that going to make things worse if they do choose to continue? Are social media and the customers themselves going to be blamed for the problem every time?
Pics:
pixabay
This is not financial advice.
sources:
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/banking-crisis-2023/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/13/biden-offers-assurances-after-major-us-banks-collapse