« First « Previous Comments 203 - 242 of 326 Next » Last » Search these comments
Putting things in perspective on bank failures. Then and now. Now is missing Silvergate Bank in the picture.
Eman says
Putting things in perspective on bank failures. Then and now. Now is missing Silvergate Bank in the picture.
Adjust for inflation since then. Comparing 2006 to 2023 is vastly different. It looks big now, but it's really not. Also the banks closing had their hands in the crypto game which lost 78% of value since its peak around December. A lot of people and businesses lost their asses in that realm. It wasn't a bank run, they had to pay bills and the funny money in crypto was gone. So they took their deposits out to keep businesses afloat.
Factor in FTX which was all in the same realm of investment and you have a shit storm. We have the tech bust in 2001, housing bust in 2007 (ish) and this will go down as the crypto bust. Unfortunately it's dragging tech into ...
I see where we don’t see eye to eye. We’ve had only 3 bank failures…..so far…..compared to all the bank failures during the GFC. Will we have more bank failures? I hope NOT! I hope J Powell and Yellen put an end to the bank runs with their joined statement on Sunday. 🙏
Patrick says
The problem isn't the "bailout" - it's just making depositors whole.
The problem is that nobody is going to be prosecuted. That's the problem. People need to go to fucking jail. Instead they will just pay a fine. SVB was making wreckless and irresponsible bets. This USED to be prevented by Glass–Steagall. This is a failure of regulators and our criminal government. Put these assholes in jail or it's just going to happen again.
Is Sam Bankman Fried in jail yet?
This is all happening because nobody went to jail with widespread mortgage fraud in the early 2000's.
Collin Rugg
@CollinRugg
·
22h
BREAKING: Gavin Newsom failed to disclose personal ties including his bank accounts at Silicon Valley Bank while lobbying for their bailout.
This is illegal.
This is illegal.
Credit Suisse is next, apparently. If they goes under, it will be much worse.
Collin Rugg
CollinRugg
·
22h
BREAKING: Gavin Newsom failed to disclose personal ties including his bank accounts at Silicon Valley Bank while lobbying for their bailout.
This is illegal.
Silicon Valley Bank offered nearly $73 million to Black Lives Matter-related social justice organizations in the years preceding its failure, while Signature Bank gave $850,000. A database maintained by the conservative Claremont Institute reveals that SVB contributed over $73,450,000 to the movement and other social justice organizations in an effort to improve its Environmental, Social, and Governance grade. In the meantime, New York-based Signature Bank gave a total of $850,000 over the course of several years prior to its failure on Sunday.
Building a Culture of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at SVB
Clearly SVB was emphasizing DIE over competence:
https://www.svb.com/about-us/living-our-values
Building a Culture of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at SVB
https://www.svb.com/about-us/living-our-values/diversity-equity-inclusion
https://www.svb.com/globalassets/library/uploadedfiles/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-at-svb_january-2023.pdf
Go woke go broke! SVB hired board obsessed with diversity, invested $5BN for 'healthier planet' and held month-long Pride celebration - but had NO chief risk officer for eight months last year
Silicon Valley Bank had an A rating for its Environmental, Social and Governance policies as it increased diversity and invested in sustainability startups
But for eight months last year, the bank did not have a chief risk operator
At the time, it was investing clients' money in low-interest government bonds and securities that saw their value fall when interest rates rose
I can't find any confirmation of how much they gave to BLM, but it seems unlikely to me that they did not donate, given how openly woke they were:
https://www.svb.com/globalassets/library/uploadedfiles/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-at-svb_january-2023.pdf
I read a very convincing explanation of the psychology behind that here:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-glorification-of-sub-mediocrity
The point being that people in positions of great responsibility must be hired on competence alone, utterly without regard to race, not only for the protection of the public, but because discrimination in employment based on race is illegal, and because hiring based on race makes everyone rightly suspicious of the competence of minorities in positions of power.
and that it's misinformation put out by Fox News.
The point being that people in positions of great responsibility must be hired on competence alone, utterly without regard to race, not only for the protection of the public, but because discrimination in employment based on race is illegal, and because hiring based on race makes everyone rightly suspicious of the competence of minorities in positions of power.
One of America’s leading audit firms, KPMG, is defending giving both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank a clean bill of health just days before they collapsed last weekend.
The banks imploded when customers rushed to withdraw their savings in panic-fueled bank runs.
The two banks collapsed shortly after their respective annual reports were certified by KPMG.
KPMG is one of the so-called “Big Four” accounting firms.
Why do those seven words matter so much?
The reason that depositors started pulling money from Silicon Valley Bank last Thursday wasn’t because they suddenly woke up and decided Silicon Valley had a weird-looking logo. It was because Silicon Valley had lost huge amounts of money buying low-yielding Treasury notes and mortgage-backed securities.
Bonds carry two kinds of risk, credit and interest rate risk. (Bearer bonds carry a third kind of risk, that they will be stolen, ala Die Hard. But bearer bonds don’t really exist anymore.)
Credit risk is obvious - if a company goes bankrupt and can’t pay back a bond, it’s worthless, give or take. Interest rate risk is more subtle. Bond prices rise as interest rates fall and fall as rates rise.
For a person who owns a bond and just plans to hold it until it matures, interest rate risk doesn’t matter much.
But for a bank, interest rate risk matters hugely.
A bank takes money from depositors and uses it to make loans or buy bonds (or other, more esoteric financial instruments). If the depositors want their money back, the bank has to give it to them. If it has to get that money by selling bonds when their value has dropped because interest rates have risen, it will lose money. A bond for which it paid $100 might only be worth $90.
But not to the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve just told the world that it will pretend that a bond which is really only worth $90 is actually worth $100 - “par.” That’s what “these assets will be valued at par” means.
This program is similar to the way the Fed started to bail out banks in 2008, when it bought mortgage-backed securities that no one else would. That program, like this one, was supposed to be a temporary response to a crisis that threatened to destroy much of the banking system.
How’d that work out for us? Before the banking crisis of 2008, the Fed had under $1 trillion in assets. In bailing out banks that fall, it more than doubled the size of its balance sheet - to over $2 trillion.
Today the Federal Reserve has over $8 trillion in assets - loans and bonds that it has taken from banks (and since Covid, from companies directly). It is a larger and more crucial backstop to the banking system than it was 15 years ago.
For a long time, all that extra help didn’t seem to matter. Yes, interest rates were artificially low, mightily benefitting to the richest people in the world - on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. But inflation was also low.
In 2021, though, the bill came due. Inflation suddenly spiked, and it has stayed high since.
To get inflation under control, the Federal Reserve has had no choice but to raise interest rates - and even more importantly, to reduce the size of its balance sheet and thus the amount of money in the banking system.
But the interest rate increases have caused a massive problem for banks. Over the last decade, they grew addicted to paying nothing - as in zero percent interest - on more deposits than they knew what to do with. They parked the money in Treasury notes and other low-risk bonds.
Low credit risk, that is. Those bonds had interest-rate risk like all the others. And when the Fed began to raise interest rates, they lost value. Some banks did a better job managing that risk than others, and - coming back to last week - Silicon Valley Bank did a particularly bad job.
As of last week, the bonds that Silicon Valley held were worth about $16 billion less than it had paid for them.
Coincidentally, Silicon Valley’s entire equity capital base - all the money it had to backstop depositors against all losses - was also about $16 billion. Thus Silicon Valley was effectively broke before the run on its deposits started.
The only question was who would get out whole and who wouldn’t. ...
What happens next? Where and how does all this end? I don't know. But it WILL end. Eventually these excesses will have to be unwound, gradually or suddenly. When they are, you can bet that all the people who have made fortunes from cheap cash for the last 15 years will be reaching into someone else’s pockets to save themselves - just as they did over the weekend.
And the only pockets left will be the federal government’s.
In other words, yours.
« First « Previous Comments 203 - 242 of 326 Next » Last » Search these comments
Oh yeah, and to once again blow away the bullshit about everyone being insured, read the article about how some depositors will have to pray dividend sales will someday return their deposits to them.
For some fun search bank run and see what some of the top images are.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/300-billion-reasons-why-svb-contagion-spreading-broader-banking-system