Breaking News: Major Tech Lender Silicon Valley Bank Fails!

Spidey Man

Spidey Man

Superstar
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
9,523
Reputation
1,000
Daps
27,717
Reppin
NULL
On the one hand it's fascinating to see a social media caused bank run, but on the other hand, it's scary to see the real damage caused by social media. I hate to see the damage a nation state might be able to pull off now that Twitter has gutted all of their safe guards
 
BigMoneyGrip

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
82,152
Reputation
11,608
Daps
324,109
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush
Spidey Man said:
On the one hand it's fascinating to see a social media caused bank run, but on the other hand, it's scary to see the real damage caused by social media. I hate to see the damage a nation state might be able to pull off now that Twitter has gutted all of their safe guards
Click to expand...
You saw it with the 2016 election
 
Neo. The Only. The One.

Neo. The Only. The One.

THE ONE
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
71,910
Reputation
17,079
Daps
306,093
Spidey Man said:
I mean more like ai deep fake videos of Biden designed to cause panic
Click to expand...




That will never happen unless all communication is cut off at the White House. There are reporters on hand at all times for the sole purpose of covering every word that the president utters. A deep fake would get immediately debunked.
 
Spiritual Stratocaster

Spiritual Stratocaster

Jesus is KING
Supporter
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
38,606
Reputation
7,294
Daps
149,578
Geek Nasty said:
Troubled banks trigger bank runs, I saw a great take last night that banks have been getting away with these fractional percent savings accounts for decades now, and people are starting to figure out "hey I can buy a 6 month CD at 5% fukk my bank".

I don't have a ton of cash but I'm about to close my savings account and start dumping into CDs instead myself.

Monday is going to be interesting as a whole lot of people are going to re-learn "oh yeah, FDIC insurance has a cap" and start withdrawing money from bank.
Click to expand...
Breh the savings account at my bank are pure:trash:

fukking 1% annual..you fukking kidding me?


Put in $60 and I can't even get $62 back in a year? :dahell:
 
ogc163

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,150
Daps
22,319
Reppin
Bronx, NYC

The US bank system is more fragile than you’d think​


Register to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
www.ft.com www.ft.com

Academia isn’t exactly famous for churning out timely papers of practical value. But occasionally a gem emerges from the scholastic grind at the perfect moment. One such effort has landed in FTAV’s SVB-bloated inbox today.

The abstract from five researchers at the University of Southern California, Northwestern University, Columbia University, Stanford University and NBER (our emphasis below):

We analyze U.S. banks’ asset exposure to a recent rise in the interest rates with implications for financial stability. The U.S. banking system’s market value of assets is $2 trillion lower than suggested by their book value of assets accounting for loan portfolios held to maturity. Marked-to-market bank assets have declined by an average of 10% across all the banks, with the bottom 5th percentile experiencing a decline of 20%.
We illustrate that uninsured leverage (i.e., Uninsured Debt/Assets) is the key to understanding whether these losses would lead to some banks in the U.S. becoming insolvent-- unlike insured depositors, uninsured depositors stand to lose a part of their deposits if the bank fails, potentially giving them incentives to run.
A case study of the recently failed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is illustrative. 10 percent of banks have larger unrecognized losses than those at SVB. Nor was SVB the worst capitalized bank, with 10 percent of banks having lower capitalization than SVB. On the other hand, SVB had a disproportional share of uninsured funding: only 1 percent of banks had higher uninsured leverage. Combined, losses and uninsured leverage provide incentives for an SVB uninsured depositor run.
We compute similar incentives for the sample of all U.S. banks. Even if only half of uninsured depositors decide to withdraw, almost 190 banks are at a potential risk of impairment to insured depositors, with potentially $300 billion of insured deposits at risk. If uninsured deposit withdrawals cause even small fire sales, substantially more banks are at risk. Overall, these calculations suggests that recent declines in bank asset values very significantly increased the fragility of the US banking system to uninsured depositor runs.
Click to expand...
You can find the full paper here.

The Silicon Valley Bank-related stuff will be painfully familiar to anyone who has read Alphaville since -checks notes- last… Thursday?? By now it’s clear that SVB was a huge outlier among banks when it came to uninsured deposits.

But Erica Jiang, Gregor Matvos, Tomasz Piskorski, and Amit Seru estimate that there are quite a few banks with bigger unrecognised losses and worse capital positions than SVB. The $2.2tn of unrealised losses is much bigger than most other figures floating about. Here’s the breakdown:

https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2F785d234a-b8dd-454f-9cd3-0014bbd26cfb.jpg


As KWB’s Tom Michaud told Alex yesterday: “These underwater bond positions are going to have to be addressed . . . Banks who have larger [mark-to-market losses] could be candidates to raise capital.”

The SVB combination of factors still looks very idiosyncratic though. Even setting aside differing quality of risk management and intensity of regulations, the vast majority of banks will never have to recognise mark-to-market losses on their bond portfolios as they can and will just hold them until maturity. This isn’t junk, it’s overwhelmingly Treasuries and high-grade mortgage bonds.

What forced SVB into booking the losses was an evaporating deposits as tech companies pulled money en masse. That meant it had to sell $21bn of bonds at a $1.8bn loss, and started the avalanche. But the fragile deposit base was the crucial weakness. As the paper notes: “If SVB failed because of losses alone, more than 500 other banks should also have failed.”

Nonetheless, the researchers argue that the US banking system is a lot more fragile than commonly assumed.

. . . Prior to the recent asset declines all US banks had positive bank capitalization. However, after the recent decrease in value of bank assets, 2,315 banks accounting for $11 trillion of aggregate assets have negative capitalization. This calculation underscores that recent declines in bank asset values significantly decreased bank capitalization and bank insolvency risk.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top