♪. stuart: here's the question. when did chicago begin turning the river green for st. patrick's day. 48, 65, 52, 70. >> 1955. stuart: mike? >> 191962. stuart: i'm going with 70. the answer is 1962. city workers dumped 100-pounds of dye in the water in chick foy. it stayed green for a week. time is up for me. but "coast to coast" starts now. neil: banking on a comeback.

at least hoping for one. so far getting one. the dow trying to stop a five-day slide amid growing hopes that regional banks have stopped their slide. have they? kevin o'leary, mr. "shark tank" investor himself whether other financial sharks are still out there. have you noticed what is going on with mortgage rates. they have been falling. pulte capital ceo bill pulte should you be buying refinancing no matter what the fed does or doesn't do next week. they're still trying to find a buyer for silicon valley bank. the president said depositors will be protected no matter. investors? maybe not. meet an svb customer riding on a all of this and employees waiting for a paycheck to save them from this. i'm neil cavuto. turnaround tuesday is on, my friends. the only question how long will it last? who better to go to than "shark tank" investor kevin o'leary.

welcome back. >> thank you. great to be here. neil: what is real, what is going on yesterday or what is going on today? >> combination of both. right now the narrative with investors in the banking sector is how punitive is this going to be in new regulations? let's take the regionals first. there will be problems ahead here because frankly i don't think guarantying deposit is enough to keep everybody with all of their money in a regional bank. there will be diversification. even our own portfolio we moved our assets across five different financial institutions. i don't care anymore to take risk, concentrated risks. i think others will do the same. that is problem number one. number two, if you're a regional bank, i think all kinds of new regulations keep you more liquid short term. you can't deploy the capital to make returns for shareholders. this bigger question will weigh on the entire sector? what did we just do? did we just nationalize the

banking system? if there is no risk at all for any depositor of any size what stops banking managers who are just compensated on equity from just going crazy and doing things that are going to be very extended in behavior to jack up the stock price because they have no risk? you have always idiot managers, black swan types at silicon valley bank doing stupid things. we have more of those black swans swimming in the lake. we don't know where they are. we basically have to make a decision. this is something every investor is thinking about, maybe this sector, 11 sectors in the economy. this sector offices all other 10. maybe it is utility will be way overregulated and make really lousy returns for shareholders going forward and i think that is the debate going forward. neil: another debate going forward, that of good intentions potentially could go bad, concerning the silicon valley

bank rescue. ken griffin the billionaire investor said it was a mistake. we will rue the day. he said u.s. capitalism is breaking down before our eyes. what do you think of that? >> no, it is a bold statement but i think it's narrative that is coming into the market in terms of valuing what the value of banks is and will be you know in the future because, the thing we have to think about that started all of this and the narrative only 48 hours old, this is no different than a really bad manager at any other sector. so the combination of idiot management at silicon valley bank with a board, overseeing board that was incompetent or negligent or both and obviously you just announce they will be investigated of course that should happen but that is an isolated incident. if we let that collapse before we got into panic we would have a much better situation that would have said, okay, 95% of these assets were covered. no problem. and so 5% for people that had

more than 250,000 per account is something the bank could have absorbed. those investors are very high net worth investors or they're very sophisticated hedge funds and other businesses that can take a 5% hit. that is not what we did. as a, as government said we have concern about the overall banking system. let's guarranty everything. that is moral hazard right there. that is something else people hadn't focused on prior to this. this whole narrative started around payroll. my goodness if my money is sitting in svb, i can't make payroll which is illegal many states particularly california. the government already allocated $250 billion plus into something called the employer retention credit program back in 2020, nobody took advantage of it. nobody even called it down. less than nine billion was put to work. why aren't people looking at that? it is still available for the next 23 months? i people start to look at that

will look at now too. there are problems we just did. policy has unintended con sequenceses. nationalizing the bank i think what happened here. now going forward i think a lot of bank managers, wait a second, i have no risk. i'm going to go crazy like those guys did at the silicon valley bank do stupid leveraged things. if anything goes wrong, as long as i stay within the baseball rules of banking nothing can happen at me because the fed covers all my depositors. i don't have to worry if i'm crazy that is the problem we got. neil: that is very interesting. robert kiyosaki of rich dad, poor dad fame, it doesn't stop here, silicon valley, regional banks, it goes higher. respond to this, kevin. this again from robert kiyosaki. >> let me say it again again, the problem is the bond market and my prediction, i called lehman brothers years ago and i think the next bank to go is credit suisse. if that happens japan --

neil: because of its exposure to a lot of this? >> yes. because the bond market is crashing. neil: bigger fish are on the way, do you buy that? >> i don't consider credit suisse bigger fish. if credit suisse is going to fail, let it fail. my whole point we should have let silicon valley bank fail, signature bank fail. that is not the end of our system. they represent a tiny fraction of the economy. the whole issue is around confidence in banking. i think cooler heads would have prevailed 48 hours late, really 95% of the assets are recoverable in silicon valley bank. you talked a little bit about selling this bank. the franchise value of the word silicon valley bank has been trashed. it is no better than radioactive waste it has become the poster board for idiot management. no one will want the brand, not here, not anywhere. i'm not really confident they are going to get bought.

when you basically guarranty a bailout for every single depositor, what about people outside painting the steps, or person that runs the kitchen, all those creditors in there, they will get nothing. that sounds very unfair. so that is the nature of what is occurring here but at the same time when one bank fails it doesn't mean everyone of them fails. is this not like 08 in any measure. that was everybody's mortgage-backed security problem. silicon valley bank had stupid loans out, that is the bottom line. everybody figured that out. nobody ever heard of this bank just 48 hours ago. now they're the poster board for doing stupid things in banking. should have let them fail, not panic, not change policy for the entire banking system. neil: there is a parallel here that the svp executive in charge was a former lehman cfo. i don't know if there is anything to that but i do want to get your take on the market response today. you know, obviously feeling that we just dodged a bullet, whether

that is short-lived or not i have no idea. i've been watching what is going on in the crypto arena. you know a little bit about that, soaring again today, a coin well over $25,000. what is going on there and how do you explain that? >> well, the cryptocurrency space, granddaddy of them all being bitcoin is going to fib brill late between 17,000, 25,000, up and down and up and down while this goes on because it is no different than any other risk on asset. when you feel the fed is giving you a put, then you're going to buy into it. that is what's happened but the truth is about bitcoin, everybody should realize this, i do a lot of work with sovereign wealth indexing, none of them own any of this stuff. the idea big institutions are coming into bitcoin is a falsehood. the reason that is the case gensler and the congress is looking at crypto and hasn't set policy yet. until there is policy on it no big boys are going to play.

if you love a lot of volatility bitcoin is your game. all kinds of hedge funds play wit, individual investors but if you really want to see bitcoin become a real asset of constant appreciation and a hedge against inflation you got to get a one to 3% allocation in sovereign wealth and pension domestically. that is not going to happen while gensler is on the warpath. nobody wants to touch this that has to play nice with the sec that includes all the world's pension plans who put majority of indexing in s&p 500. they don't want to mess around with a asset class that gensler doesn't like. believe me he doesn't like it because it is not regulated and he will go after everybody playing with it and until he is finished it will be difficult to own long term. it is fun to watch it move between 17 and 25, maybe higher but it is not big boys currency yet. neil: thank you very much. kevin o'leary, o'leary investors, "shark tank"

investing. much more. want to pick up with peter tuckman. peter to hear kevin we might regret this rescue but we're not looking at another financial melt down. what do you think of that? >> you know agree with kevin on some things and not on others. i don't think there is a lot relates to what happened in '08, 09. that was pervasive throughout the whole sector. i think this is isolated right now as far as we know. obviously we're seeing a lot of contagion with other companies. i don't think the story completely unfolded yet. whether i think we made a mistake bailing these two guys out, before i listened to kevin i thought it was the right thing to do. i'm glad we did not bail out shareholders but at the end of the day you're giving a checkbook for the fed, whether it is political or financial would not end up well. would you have a lot of dissent amongst the ranks about that story. but at the end of day do we let these guys go under?

do we let them, kevin was right in the way if we let this unfold, the story felt like we needed to address it immediately t was a bit of a perfect storm t happened on a friday. we had the weekend to mull over all the potential disaster and a run on the banks and the fear was that people would come to the bank on monday morning and not have access to their money that fear probably made everybody make their decision. did they jump the gun a little bit? because at the end of the day the whole problem that basically people got kind of spooked. they started pulling money out. at the end of the day, maybe 95% of the assets were recoverable. maybe we did jump ahead of the game to do that but at the end of the day right now, look, look, one or two days not make a solution to this problem happen. yesterday obviously was very risky and problematic and showed the fragility of the sector. today once again we are up. the market is up 500 points.

s&p up 75, 80 handles. the banks retraced downside quite significantly. i'm standing next to first republic, it doubled the price from the lows yesterday. it is all about confidence. we spoke about it you and me yesterday too. neil: right. >> the confidence and perception things will be okay is a super important thing, right? we know that old "it's a wonderful life" george bailey story. if everyone is fearful there will be run on banks, we saw, look, i think all of this started with the lack of confidence around the ftx story and i think that gave people that sort of blanketed us with the fact that there is so much collateral damage around bad players, whether it is in the crypto space, whether it is in -- look these guys made irresponsible trades. these trades should not, they should not have let them go to the point where they were in need of $2.1 billion. as i'm reading the story, more and more i understand too that may have been a better way for them to go to the market to try and recoup the money that they had lost.

without them you know, going out to the, i think it was a branding marketing mistake in a lot of different ways. if they kept it internal recovered what was available. anyway, you know, look, you and i, an important thing we should really bring up as i had spoken to the producer earlier yes, we did have a economic number come out this morning and yes, even though inflation is hot it came back right as expected but i don't think i think a lot of these people, like the goldman sachss of the world are starting to talk about how is to going to affect the federal reserves next meeting? are they going to halt raising interest rates? in my opinion i don't think this has anything to do -- look, they're raising interest rates because they see a path to curbing inflation on the upside, on the downside and roll it over. i don't think this situation, i think it is isolated enough. i don't think it has anything to do with what is going on

inflationarily, do you? neil: i was going to raise with you, if they go ahead to hike next week a quarter point, some argue this would compound the situation, they didn't learn from this. if you're in the camp that says this is worrisome development t might be equally bad if they don't do anything for fear they're putting off their inflationary fight getting behind the curve. where are you? >> i'm a firm believer, if you make a decision, the federal reserve has developed the strategy by raising interest rates at decreasing level at this point we're trying to get inflation under wraps. okay. if they are going, i know their decision making is often and always actually data driven decision making and we've seen them flip-flop a little bit when the different numbers come out that are a little better than expected, less than expected. they will go from 50 basis points down to 25. the week after they did that some of the fed presidents came out and said we should have done

a 50 and now suddenly you've got an isolated crisis that really has nothing to do with the inflation story and if they started a justing their strategy based on that i think the perception by the community, wow, they don't really know what they're doing. they have to hold their ground on one strategy, adjust it on another strategy but what they do with interest rates should have no effect by this individual, isolated banking crisis because they don't have anything to do with each other but if in fact they say, suddenly, whoa, we'll halt that, things are looking a little fragile people will really question their, their, the strength of their decision-making at that point. neil: yeah. and their conviction. peter -- >> their commitment, exactly, their conviction. neil: peter, i love this, twice in 24 hours. we have to do this more times,

my friend. peter tuck man. >> i love that. neil: carl icahn was echoing a lot of points peter was raising, mainly the moral hazard issue, the notion that the president pushed that taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for these bailouts or whatever you want to call them. carl icahn begs to differ after this. the administration says that will not come out on the taxpayer. do you believe that? >> well i don't understand how it doesn't come out on the taxpayer. i can't figure that one out. i would like you to explain it to me. who is paying it? how do they pay that? hey look, i'm not here to talk about that bank and what government is doing. neil: i understand. >> a lot of people can't afford the wars, government is bailing them out. you have moral hazard, and you can't let companies sink when they screw up it doesn't matter because the government will save you, then you will get rampant inflation and currency will go to hell.

♪. whoa. okay. easy does it. we switched to liberty mutual and saved $652. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. with the money we saved, we thought we'd try electric unicycles. whoa! careful, babe! saving was definitely easier. hey babe, i think i got it! it's actually... whooooa! ok, show-off! help! oh! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day... a "let's dig in" day... mm. ...a "chow down" day... a "take a big bite" day...

a "perfectly delicious" day... - mm. [ chuckles ] - ...a "love my new teeth" day. because your clearchoice day is the day everything is back on the menu. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. a ballet studio, an architecture firm... and homemade barbeque sauce. they're called 'small businesses.' but to the people who build them there's nothing 'small' about them. that's why at t-mobile for business... you'll save more than $1,000 versus verizon. and with price lock guarantee, we'll never raise your rate plan. so you can keep your focus on toe-turns and making sure the sauce is extra spicy. at t-mobile, there are no small businesses. ♪

lomita feed is 101 years old. when covid hit, we had some challenges. i heard about the payroll tax refund that allowed us to keep the people that have been here taking care of us. learn more at getrefunds.com.

president biden: investors in the banks will not be invested.

they knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn't pay off investors lose their money. that is how capitalism works. neil: well, it is not quite that simple according to my next guest. you don't have call him investor, money in a bank as small business, had a payroll to make. he is glad he is covered in this. a small businessman. gary had five million in the bank right now. derek, had you been told that money is safe, you're going to get it, have you gotten any of it? >> we have access. we're able to wire successfully the money out yesterday. neil: oh, good, i'm glad to hear that. you know what some are sayingfies like you did not deserve to get more than the fdic normally funded $250,000, when you hear them say that, and lump you in with typical bank customers, what do you say? >> i mean obviously we had a emotional few days there.

it is hard not to hear that and feel, take it personally. i think we can both hold the idea that management made, you know, a terrible mistake and then messaged it poorly as peter mentioned early on the program but also depositors should be made whole. the same way i'm not an investor or shareholder the business as you mentioned. we chose the to bank with svb. the same way someone would choose to do business with any regional bank. they have been good for entrepreneurs, innovators fora long time. who knew they would make such a poor decision that would lead to such a twitter frenzy that would lead to insolvency. neil: what do you do now, where do you park your money now, your business? do you spread it out, what? you have a lot of on your mind keeping your own business going, but what do you think? >> biggest thing, the most frustrating part of last four days not being able to focus on

big impact and vision we have at my company. i am glad to back to worrying about those problems now. i do think i learned some things. i think it is every challenge is an opportunity to learn. we will further diversify our cash holdings. we were diverse enough to survive for the next couple months let's say, past that point we would have really been in trouble. we would have been an extraordinary massive amount of companies including many startups trying to make a difference and make good. neil: all right. derek, thank you very much. i hope it works out for you. it was a close call as you were saying. keep us posted on that, derek. we would love to go back to see how things are working out. in the meantime i told you a lot of this skittishness around what happened yesterday, whether our financial system was on the brink proves so far that it is not the case. it could affect peoples plans, their spending plans, the first hint of that maybe has come from

united airlines. i will explain after this. ♪ i count on personalized financial advice from my ameriprise advisor. she knows my goals and can help me reach them with confidence. the markets may fluctuate but you're still on track. more than 9 out of 10 clients are likely to recommend us. ameriprise financial. this man needs updated covid protection. so does she. yup, these guys too. because covid is still out there, and so are you. and if your last vaccine was before september 2022,

you're out there with fading protection. but an updated vaccine restores your protection. so you can keep doing you. get an updated covid vaccine and stay out there, safely. - they get it. they know how it works. and more importantly, it works for them. - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment every month. - it allowed me to live in my home and not have to make payments. - linda, dinah, joanne, very different people, but they do have a couple of things in common. they love their home and they know their stuff.

they all talked about the counseling they got so they knew how reverse mortgage worked and how it could be a real financial solution for their retirement. - [advertiser] if you are 62 or older and own your home, find out how you could access your home's equity to give you cash now and when you need it in the future. a reverse mortgage could put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher interest credit cards, and covering medical costs. - a person like me needed to get a reverse mortgage. it changed my life, it was the best thing i've ever done. - [tom selleck] really? - yes! without a doubt! - just like these folks, aag can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash. they also know they can pay it back whenever it works for 'em. - it's a good thing. - [advertiser] call right now to receive your free no obligation info kit. the kit will show you how you could get the cash you need using your home's equity

as a reverse mortgage from aag. - call the number on your screen. - i've been with aag for quite a while now. i think they're the real deal. so look, why don't you get the facts, like these folks did, and see if a reverse mortgage could work for you? - [advertiser] call aag, the country's #1 reverse mortgage lender. - call the number on your screen.

♪. neil: are we seeing the first signs consumers might be retrenching, thinking about it? whether pegged to the latest banking craziness, or running out of dough, something happened to unite the airlines with first-quarter loss. latest from lauren simonetti. lauren: surprise first-quarter loss. fewer people are traveling first of february, early march and their expenses are going up. i think this is a big reason too. they cited the new pilot contract. they're still negotiating it. look with delta the deal they

reached with their pilots union, 34% pay increase over four years for their pilots. maybe united a little bit spooked by that. they now expected a juiced quarterly loss, 60 cents a share, a dollar a share. left full year numbers the same. go with outlyer today. look at other airlines, american is saying demand is and i'm quoting tremendous. delta is saying something similar. jetblue expects 35% revenue growth for this quarter. as i noted other airlines are up. united being left out. neil: lauren, thank you for that. lauren simonetti. by the way all of this comes at a time when china is welcoming tourists back to their country, no covid related tests are necessary. but again if travelers are getting cautious what could that mean? stephen yates, former deputy national security advisor to dick cheney with us right now. stephen, what would be the impact of that? >> obviously it is significant if they have opened after such a

long pause. it would be likely a dramatic increase in outside visitors, bringing outside money. it would be stimulative to the chinese economy. i think that is a very big open question, whether people feel comfortable and confident. after all, china's government record about telling the truth about this virus and its various approaches to dealing with it haven't exactly been really attractive to a lot of foreigners. a lot of foreigners got stuck in china in long lockdowns and lost businesses this is the first step of them opening back up. we'll see how hot the rush is to get back in. neil: steve, you have to wonder, i hope we don't come to military war here. it is clear we started an economic one. both countries are going tit-for-tat whatever punishments the one enacts to go after new ones to come. i wonder how that plays out here? whether the american people are prepared for the implications of

an economic war, however justified, to stick it to the chinese that we have to be warned that they will stick it yous? a lot of prices of things will go up. a lot of things we depend on for china will not be available, you know the drill? how do you think we prepare americans for that? >> well i think americans do need to be prepared. i think sadly we don't have any cost-free options because there is another side to this coin that recently concluded government meeting in beijing, xi xinping made very clear they are sure pursuing a strategy that effectively insulates what happened to russia post-invasion of ukraine and they want to emphasize their own domestic sources of things. they're doing the strategic decoupling some americans are advocating for. they're just doing it on their own first. this is an era where the white house calls it competition. i think they as a government are adversarial to us and our

policies are just catching up. neil: do you ever wonder, stephen, that why would china even risk military provocative actions when it knows what's happened to russia, how isolated vladmir putin is with the rest of the world, specifically because of this kind of behavior? he obviously went one step further declaring war on ukraine but it would not be in their economic interest to keep doing this but they do and they are? >> any there are all could have areas of rationality in xi xinping's brain that don't comport with we, you and i would be considered to be rational thought t was not rational for them to crush the freest part of all of china in hong kong. it was not rational to engage in behavior that resulted in a declaration of genocide against the uyghurs and it wasn't really rational for them to amp up military games around speaker

pelosi's visit last year when their economy depends on interaction with taiwan as much as taiwan's does theirs. economics is not the first driver for xi xinping thought. he seems to have reinforcing circle around them that sees on student where american weakness has been exposed abroad. that is why you see them stepping into diplomacy in the middle east and perhaps into diplomacy between russia and ukraine. neil: stephen, thank you for that. we'll keep an eye on it, stephen yates, former deputy national security advisor to vice president dick cheney. the buying surge continues at wall and broad. the dow up smartly. the dow itself is trying to rerace what had been four losing sessions in a row. we'll see if they are able to hold things there. the phenomenon we're keeping an eye on the collapse in mortgage rates. what could that mean if people pounce. are they? after this.

♪. ♪ if you walmart, you know ♪ that with everyday low prices you can spend a little less, to get a little more, to make life a little better. kids are so expensive, dad. now katie needs braces. maybe try switching your car insurance to progressive. you could save hundreds. i don't know, dad. ♪ maybe try switching your car insurance to progressive. you could save hundreds. that's a great idea, tv dad. but i said the exact same thing. some day when you're a father, you'll understand.

i'm his father. it's not a competition. listen to your tv dad. drivers who switch and save with progressive save nearly $700 on average.

when you stay at a vrbo you always get the whole home not part of it but the whole upstairs the whole downstairs the whole fridge and the whole secret nap room because is it really a vacation home if you have to share a house with a host? ♪ only with vrbo i'm so glad we did this. i'm so glad we did this. i'm so glad we did this. i'm so glad we did this. i'm so... ...glad we did this.

[kid plays drums] life is for living. let's partner for all of it. i'm so glad we did this. edward jones ♪. >> i don't consider credit suisse bigger fish. if credit suisse is going to fail, let it fail! my mole wouldn't we should have let silicon valley bank fail. sick ture signature bank fail. that is not the whole system. neil: market takes exception with credit suisse. something that shows you what represents kevin o'leary getting into here. first republic bank a big come back, amid the reports it was on the brink. not on the brink right now. credit suisse with all the capital problems it outlined, having to reexamine its books still under some selling

pressure. charles schwab coming back for what was across the board industry selloff. what to make of that with bill pulte of pulte capital? he is the ceo there. bill has an interesting take on this which mirrors what kevin o'leary was saying with us earlier. this is the on the bank. this is on certainly in the case of silicon valley bank bad management practices. someone must know what was going on there or had advance knowledge what was going on there could have precipitated this, bill is offering a whistle-blower $50,000 to uncover any crimes that lead to conviction of silicon valley bank executive. i hope i got that about right, bill but where does this stand and why are you doing it? >> well, i'm doing it, neil, frankly because a lot of cases you have here, you have a government mo who obviously will look into it. they sometimes take too long.

i say if you have any information, we as philanthropists to find out what was going on here. pulte homes, our own pham at this business, executives think sometimes they own these companies neil and they don't. shareholders own these companies. we need to see why was this guy trading stock, what was he doing? obviously there is a huge bailout that the taxpayers i think have to pay and that is not necessarily fair. in my opinion. neil: i hear where you're coming from. echos your view of kevin o'leary to lesser degree, carl icahn who i also chatted, what if the guy did something idiotic, not deliberately criminal? misgauged the timing of bond and treasury notes purchases that boomeranged on him, bought too early, sold too soon, he said i had to sell too soon to get cash. go heed. >> maybe we'll see. we want to give people the

benefit of the doubt. people in this country, even though these days doesn't seem like it are innocent until proven guilty. let's see if he is innocent. meantime there are significant ramifications for this, neil, we talk about this. the mortgage market will have significant downstream effects in the economy, mortgage financing and the industry in general. neil: in the macro picture you could say for the mortgage market maybe it helped a little bit, there was concern here a flight to quality in bonds and in the 10-year, all of that, that reduced mortgage rates, since come back a little from those lows but that in a perverse way it helped. what do you think? >> neil, i will tell i think you're exactly correct. i think the big problem here is potentially by bailing out the depositors, you're essentially allowing banks to invest in mortgage-backed securities. now for the mortgage market, neil, that's going to mean it will be very good for the mortgage market because

essentially these banks are going to have zero to no risk, essentially in investing in mortgage-backed securities that have in some cases higher yields maybe more risky than some of these 10-year treasury notes, some of these government bonds. so this is a huge deal, the fact that the federal government will essentially backstop what could potentially be significant investment in the mortgage bond market. neil, i think that is actually quite bullish for the rates from a consumer perspective if they keep this up. we'll have to see what happens. we'll have to see if that truly is, they're going to bail out the depositors at all the regional banks. if they do that, neil, you will see a lot of people buying mortgage bonds. neil: you're right about the unintended consequences for that. if there is no punishment making a stupid move, idiotic one or potentially criminal one what is to stop that going forward. i do want to get your take though on what you make of what the federal reserve does next week. i know you're not in the housing

business per se anymore but you follow obviously the markets and mortgage industry and real estate et, al. there is growing consensus, i don't know how reliable it is, the fed might hold off next week, that this is not the time to hike rates. how do you feel about that? >> i think they have to do at least 25 basis points. we'll see what happens. i tell you, neil this is a huge seismic thing the fact they're backing these depositors, if you're sitting on investment committee of one of these banks, wow, should we be investing in mortgage bonds? we know what happened in the mbs market in the great recession. neil: right. >> if all of sudden at investment committee in the bank, wow, the government will potentially bail us out if we have any problems that really changes the whole landscape. i'm not even so sure what 25 basis points will do if that is the precedent we're setting. neil: by not moving, and i don't want to put words in your mouth,

bill, by not moving the fed would essentially be endorsing that? >> correct, correct. i think if they continue to bail out the depositors, and stuff, you will continue to see in my opinion a lot of regional banks invest in mortgage-backed securities, mortgage bonds. neil, i will say this if they don't do this as a result of the silicon valley bank thing, you will have regional banks not wanting to buy mortgage bonds, said differently you might see credit tighten up at the regional level for mortgages. which would be actually bearish for housing. so we're really kind of this two-way street now. we need to figure out what the government is going to do because there are two very different directions in my opinion. neil: you know, bill, i talk to a lot of people. somehow they come to me for financial advice which is dangerous, neil, i'm in a small bank, regional bank -- >> better than a lot of other people i'm sure. neil: i don't know about that, not as much as you. what interests me their concern about being in some of these

smaller institutions that had attractive savings rates, cd crates, now they're talking maybe i should be in a big money center bank, bank of america, citigroup, jpmorgan chase. do you see that flight to bigger going on here, or is it more isolated? >> i do. it is funny, neil. i woke up this morning to a text message from one of those four banks that i bank with and they were inquiring if anybody knew of anybody who was having issues at other banks. i think the big banks will use this to take market share. i think you will probably see that also as i mentioned not just in the, you know, deposits, in the wealth management type of business but also in terms of mortgage-backed security business. i think you will see these banks absolutely come in, continue to take market share, continue to take volume, offer potentially higher interest rates and, you know, i think this inures very much to the benefit of the big

guys sadly. a lot of regional guys will be left in the dust once this is said and done. neil: wild. you know that is a very astute read on the impact just the mortgage arena, mortgage securities market which i have not considered. maybe my friend should have gone to you, bill for this banking perspective and advice. always good seeing you, bill, thank you very, very much. >> you too, neil. thanks for having me. neil: bill pulte on all of that. jackie deangelis meanwhile what is coming up on "the big money show" as the dow races along. jackie: good afternoon to you, neil. good to see you of the inflation is stubbornly high. we're breaking down what the fed might do. jerome powell may pause his next rate hike. we'll dig into if the fed is putting the banks before you. that's next. we talk to the ceo of farm box rx. on friday we'll talk to her about recouping her funds from svb where she is in the process. all at the top of the hour. more "coast to coast" after this

who's on it with jardiance? ♪ ♪ we're the ones getting it done. we're managing type 2 diabetes and heart risk. we're on it with jardiance. join the growing number of people who are on it with the once-daily pill, jardiance. jardiance not only lowers a1c, it goes beyond to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. and jardiance may help you lose some weight. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, (that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function), and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. a once-daily pill that goes beyond lowering a1c? we're on it. we're on it.

we're on it with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance.

to finally lose 80 pounds and keep it off with golo is amazing. i've been maintaining. the weight is gone and it's never coming back. with golo, i've not only kept off the weight but i'm happier, i'm healthier, and i have a new lease on life. golo is the only thing that will let you lose weight and keep it off. who loses 138 pounds in nine months? i did! golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. (soft music) ♪. president biden: today thanks to the quick action of my administration over the past few days americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe. >> in the long run americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength.

despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. >> there were a couple of days of gains after several days of losses. we shouldn't superintendent that the assume the market excess is over but we assume that the system is working. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. neil: you probably notice a common them in all of those presidential remarks. the commander-in-chief, i like to consider in times like these, crises like these the financial chief, we as that to a treasury secretary or federal reserve chair, when remain calm when paul about are losing theirs. art laffer, significance of that what presidents have to do with occasion like this. former ronald reagan economist,

much, much more. art, still early, this president was trying to send assurances, some of his predecessors have in financial crises that our system is sound, our economy is sound, our backdrop is sound. what did you make of that? >> well i think the decision he and his group made on sunday night was the correct decision of guarantying all depositors in silicon valley bank, signature, all of that. that is the right thing for him to have done given the circumstances. when i look at what caused this what brought it on, it was his policies, fiscal policy, outrageous spending, higher taxes that put a lot of pressure on the system and then the fed with powell 8 1/2 trillion dollars on their balance sheet, that put on additional pressure. it was sort of like a boiler that will explode. the only catalyst where it will be and that is where silicon

valley bank came in the blow up occurred. reagan handled it very well, don't just stand there, do something. all depositors need to feel assured that their deposits are safe, fully there, way beyond the $250,000. we should have insurance on all deposits at member banks period. bondholders, equity holders should not be sacrosanct, they should lose their money if the bank goes under, depositors should not. neil: be careful what you wish for. kevin o'leary was with me here, carl icahn yesterday essentially this lay as dangerous precedent, you keep millions of dollars in a bank, whether for yourself or a business and be rescued. then it is devil-may-care. what do you make of that? >> i don't make very much of that. i think they're incorrect on that. you don't want depositors to be worried about the financial

soundness of the bank they're putting deposits in. you don't want analysts going through analyzing whether there is a chance after run and they will lose -- they need to be doing business. they're not investors. they're not equity holders. they're not bondholders. these are depositors in the bank need to feel sure their money is safe and sound, just like 100-dollar bill in your pocket -- neil: i know what you're saying but wouldn't the bank start assuming the government will aback stop for us no matter what crazy stuff we do? >> but that is, the bank is already that up to $250,000, neil. i mean there they guaranteed all of those. it's short step from there to guarantying -- neil: there is no risk for your depositors losing their dough even the richest among them, because then you can continue now making whatever foolhardy moves you have made? >> well, beyond a certain point of course it does take the depositors risk out of there, but that is what we should be

doing. you don't want to have this not foolhardy, you don't want a run on the bank. this is walter badge, old liability of london economist in the 19th century, in times of crisis discount freely. that is exactly what the central bank is supposed to do, keep runs from happening. that is exactly what they're supposed to do. and they did it, they did the right job. they need to correct the policies that get us here. those policies, the biden should resign, powell should resign for those, not silicon valley bank. they got us here, once you're here you have got to guaranty the deposits. you will have a run. time of long-term capital management. you remember that one. neil: time is tight, sorry my friend. you're absolutely right. good way to present. art laffer on that and more after this you ok, man? the internet is telling me a million different ways i should be trading. look! what's up my trade dogs?

you should be listening to me. you want to be rich like me? you want to trust me on this one. .. wow! yeah! it's time to take control of your investing education. cut through the noise with best-in-class education resources that match your preferred style of learning. learn your way. not theirs. td ameritrade. where smart investors get smarter℠. what if there was a community of like minded people ready to support you when you need it most? christian health care ministries is an organization with over 40 years of trusted care who understands the importance of family. a group that sees you for who you are, regardless of your health history, offering values based affordable health care cost solutions. learn more today at yourchm.org about health care that puts you in control.

(man) what if my type 2 diabetes takes over? (woman) what if all i do isn't enough? or what if i can do diabetes differently? (avo) now you can with once-weekly mounjaro. mounjaro helps your body regulate blood sugar, and mounjaro can help decrease how much food you eat. 3 out of 4 people reached an a1c of less than 7%. plus people taking mounjaro lost up to 25 pounds. mounjaro is not for people with type 1 diabetes or children. don't take mounjaro, if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop mounjaro, and call your doctor right away, if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, vision changes, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis

and gallbladder problems. taking mounjaro with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. tell your doctor if you're nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea which can cause dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. (woman) i can do diabetes differently with mounjaro. (avo) ask your doctor about once-weekly mounjaro. inner voice: (kombucha brewer): when i started my new kombucha business... ... i thought there would be a lot more kombucha... ...and a lot less business. inner voice (graphic designer): as a new small business owner... ...i've learned that trying to be the “cool” boss... ...is a lot harder when you're actually the “stressed” boss. inner voice (furniture maker): i know everything about my new furniture business. well, everything except... ...the whole “business” part. not anymore. with quickbooks, you can confidently manage your business. new business? no problem. yeah. success starts with intuit quickbooks.

adam: let's burst look at how the market is doing, particularly bank stocks coming back. credit suisse acknowledged it had material control lapses, it has been barely budging, could be the next financial shoe to drop. moody's after the fact, the us banking system, jackie

deangelis.