> other than the should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet.
This is silly. No different than buying a house w/ borrowed money based on using that house as collateral.
Banks aren't stupid. If it's very likely to fail and the interest doesn't cover the risk, banks won't risk. There's typically no upside to banks. At best they get their interest and at worst they lose everything.
Even a cursory familiarity with the history of the industry shows both that this is untrue but also that it’s leaving out many of the core reasons why finance is regulated. Bankers do make mistakes, but also their focus is on what makes them a profit now rather than what’s good for their client or the country long term. The bank does not care if GameStop goes bust as long as that happens after the loans are repaid or, most likely, sold. None of the guys who sold incredibly dodgy mortgages—if you weren’t in the market in the late-2000s, they would literally let applicants pencil in their income and not check it—went to jail for packaging those mortgages up so many times removed that they couldn’t reliably prove the loan even existed and reselling them with inflated ratings, and absolutely none of them had to repay their bonuses. Once they found a buyer for an “AAA” derivative, foreclosure was a problem for the retirement fund left holding it after a couple of sales.
That’s what I’d expect here, too: they’ll make some flashy announcements to juice share prices (“AI powered auctions paid in crypto!”) and sell that debt, spin whatever’s left into a subsidiary which splits off, and then profess complete surprise when that goes bankrupt.
> Even a cursory familiarity with the history of the industry shows both that this is untrue
The modern trend of believing that “history” is made up of one or two things that everyone saw on the news is actually really entertaining. Definition of “cursory understanding” tbh.
The banking industry, historically is far from stupid.
This particular story is just basic PR driven market manipulation and has nothing to do with the banking system.
> The modern trend of believing that “history” is made up of one or two things that everyone saw on the news is actually really entertaining.
It would be useful if you could provide a more detailed version of your argument. I don’t think you seriously believe that banks don’t make mistakes but the way this is written does sound like you’re saying it’s highly unlikely while ignoring the other half of the sentence you quoted.
I think you’re missing a basic fact here. No bank has offered to finance this deal.
Furthermore, historically, banks generally don’t make mistakes. You can find news stories from over the years showing that some banks have made some mistakes, but that would only reinforce my general point about people confusing one or two things they see in the media with “history” as a whole.
It is different. You need somewhere to live. Buying a second home with what would presumably need to be at least a 90℅ mortgage is at best questionable.
This is silly. No different than buying a house w/ borrowed money based on using that house as collateral.
Banks aren't stupid. If it's very likely to fail and the interest doesn't cover the risk, banks won't risk. There's typically no upside to banks. At best they get their interest and at worst they lose everything.