It’s not entirely surprising; I don’t know if that’s good or bad. Are we numb to this sort of behavior from the wealthy and well-connected when they get caught screwing up? Silicon Valley Bank is closed, its asset management is now in the hands of the FDIC, and it got a lifeline from the Biden administration. With the CEO, Greg Becker, out of a job, he can rest easy, knowing he’s still wealthy at his Hawaii getaway.
After the bank’s demise, Becker fled the mainland United States for his island oasis to find some calm amid the storm surrounding how he presided over the second-largest bank failure in American history (via NY Post):
The former CEO of Silicon Valley Bank who sat at the helm of the financial institution when it collapsed was spotted sauntering in Hawaii Wednesday — as his former colleagues scramble to pick up the pieces.
Greg Becker and wife Marilyn Bautista fled to their $3.1 million Maui townhouse just days after Becker, who was CEO of SVB since 2011, left the firm, photos taken by the Daily Mail show.
Despite his change in employment status, Becker, 52, seemed unconcerned with cash as the couple enjoyed a chauffeur-driven limo ride to San Francisco Airport Monday and first-class tickets to their island paradise, the outlet reported.
The former boss sported shorts and flip-flops on a stroll through Lahaina, where his custom-designed two-story home lies within a gated community outfitted with a tennis court, three surf breaks, three swimming pools and a clubhouse.
And people wonder how Donald Trump could ever be elected president of the United States. Here’s another exemplar, the clearest sign that those at the top think they’re above the law, rig the system, and play by a separate set of rules. When anger reaches a boiling point, they will vote for anyone who isn’t in the typical political mold.
I would rest easy, too, knowing the FDIC’s insurance fund will cover all depositors over $250,000. It does stabilize things, but does SVB deserve it? We’ve learned that the Fed knew about the bank’s risky investments, had it under supervisory review for a year, and warned it about its practices. Specifically, it used the wrong models to assess how its institution would absorb rate hikes. It knew but still went ahead with its boneheaded approach to banking, and now, we, the taxpayer, get left with the bill.
Does something about that seem off? You already know the answer to that.
