SVB Bank Run: Fed Calling Emergency Meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know for those shouting more regulation, regulators can always ignore what they regulate.

Remember Sheila Bair before Indymac Bank went poof?

Remember the SEC browsing porn all day and ignoring the Bernie Madoff debacle?

Congressional democrats and Franklin Raines telling everyone there is no problem before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?

Wachovia? Lehman? The S&L crisis and how congress played dumb with the Keating Five?

Banks are subject to thousands of Federal Register pages of regulation. Wouldn't be surprised if it is tens of thousands. It is not hard to see how the basics of running a bank well could be missed given the massive amount of potential compliance pitfalls.

Most of the regulations are simple requirements to make sure they have sufficient reserves, don’t have them in excessively risky investments, and don’t defraud their shareholders or customers. Regulations did not cause this. The bankers and the VCs did this to themselves.

You are clearly not a banking lawyer. There is nothing simple about the complex of rules they are subject to and they are rife with conflicting incentives. And there is an entire separate body of consumer regulations, and AML/CFT requirements.

DP - I'm no banking lawyer but it should be crystal clear that the highest-priority, and inviolate incentives and guiding principles should be fiduciary responsibility and minimizing risk for those whose money they hold. If a bank can't even get that right then they have no business existing. If any banking lawyer is confused on that, they should go into a different line of business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know for those shouting more regulation, regulators can always ignore what they regulate.

Remember Sheila Bair before Indymac Bank went poof?

Remember the SEC browsing porn all day and ignoring the Bernie Madoff debacle?

Congressional democrats and Franklin Raines telling everyone there is no problem before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?

Wachovia? Lehman? The S&L crisis and how congress played dumb with the Keating Five?

Banks are subject to thousands of Federal Register pages of regulation. Wouldn't be surprised if it is tens of thousands. It is not hard to see how the basics of running a bank well could be missed given the massive amount of potential compliance pitfalls.

Most of the regulations are simple requirements to make sure they have sufficient reserves, don’t have them in excessively risky investments, and don’t defraud their shareholders or customers. Regulations did not cause this. The bankers and the VCs did this to themselves.

You are clearly not a banking lawyer. There is nothing simple about the complex of rules they are subject to and they are rife with conflicting incentives. And there is an entire separate body of consumer regulations, and AML/CFT requirements.

DP - I'm no banking lawyer but it should be crystal clear that the highest-priority, and inviolate incentives and guiding principles should be fiduciary responsibility and minimizing risk for those whose money they hold. If a bank can't even get that right then they have no business existing. If any banking lawyer is confused on that, they should go into a different line of business.

Almost all the rules are predicated on requiring good faith practices from an industry with a history of systemic bad faith practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because the Fed/FDIC failed at bank supervision first. Whether or not it was Thiel (there’s a whole host of smaller, but still quite noxious fish, that were almost certainly involved), the concentration of economic interests at SVB should *never* have been allowed to happen. The people who matter learned nothing from 2008 and this isn’t the first time that’s been made apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know for those shouting more regulation, regulators can always ignore what they regulate.

Remember Sheila Bair before Indymac Bank went poof?

Remember the SEC browsing porn all day and ignoring the Bernie Madoff debacle?

Congressional democrats and Franklin Raines telling everyone there is no problem before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?

Wachovia? Lehman? The S&L crisis and how congress played dumb with the Keating Five?

Banks are subject to thousands of Federal Register pages of regulation. Wouldn't be surprised if it is tens of thousands. It is not hard to see how the basics of running a bank well could be missed given the massive amount of potential compliance pitfalls.

Most of the regulations are simple requirements to make sure they have sufficient reserves, don’t have them in excessively risky investments, and don’t defraud their shareholders or customers. Regulations did not cause this. The bankers and the VCs did this to themselves.

You are clearly not a banking lawyer. There is nothing simple about the complex of rules they are subject to and they are rife with conflicting incentives. And there is an entire separate body of consumer regulations, and AML/CFT requirements.

DP - I'm no banking lawyer but it should be crystal clear that the highest-priority, and inviolate incentives and guiding principles should be fiduciary responsibility and minimizing risk for those whose money they hold. If a bank can't even get that right then they have no business existing. If any banking lawyer is confused on that, they should go into a different line of business.

Almost all the rules are predicated on requiring good faith practices from an industry with a history of systemic bad faith practices.

Yeah, current financial regulation is a distinctly ‘faith-based’ initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because unfortunately they had every right to do what they did. Assuming that is that they weren't also shorting the stock. Can't legislate morality. SVB also knew what type of person he is so it still comes back to poor risk management.

[Anonymous]

Many banks are living on the edge, including the biggest bank of all: the federal reserve. We've seen crisis after crises.

May I add, there's a difference berween accidental and purposeful. These build for years and they are not accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because unfortunately they had every right to do what they did. Assuming that is that they weren't also shorting the stock. Can't legislate morality. SVB also knew what type of person he is so it still comes back to poor risk management.

In the not too distant past bank regulators would have been very clear that hyper-concentrated deposits would pose a great risk. Unfortunately, banking regulation hasn’t done enough to get smarter since the financial crisis of 2008 to ???. It’s really not about legislating morality, it’s about old fashioned prudence in preventing disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because the Fed/FDIC failed at bank supervision first. Whether or not it was Thiel (there’s a whole host of smaller, but still quite noxious fish, that were almost certainly involved), the concentration of economic interests at SVB should *never* have been allowed to happen. The people who matter learned nothing from 2008 and this isn’t the first time that’s been made apparent.

Actually, the issue of risk from uninsured depositors never came up in 2008. In fact, with the exception with Indy Mac, there were no runs. One of the lessons of 2008 is how sticky deposits can be even at very troubled banks. Clear now that can no longer be assumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know for those shouting more regulation, regulators can always ignore what they regulate.

Remember Sheila Bair before Indymac Bank went poof?

Remember the SEC browsing porn all day and ignoring the Bernie Madoff debacle?

Congressional democrats and Franklin Raines telling everyone there is no problem before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?

Wachovia? Lehman? The S&L crisis and how congress played dumb with the Keating Five?

Banks are subject to thousands of Federal Register pages of regulation. Wouldn't be surprised if it is tens of thousands. It is not hard to see how the basics of running a bank well could be missed given the massive amount of potential compliance pitfalls.

Most of the regulations are simple requirements to make sure they have sufficient reserves, don’t have them in excessively risky investments, and don’t defraud their shareholders or customers. Regulations did not cause this. The bankers and the VCs did this to themselves.

You are clearly not a banking lawyer. There is nothing simple about the complex of rules they are subject to and they are rife with conflicting incentives. And there is an entire separate body of consumer regulations, and AML/CFT requirements.

DP - I'm no banking lawyer but it should be crystal clear that the highest-priority, and inviolate incentives and guiding principles should be fiduciary responsibility and minimizing risk for those whose money they hold. If a bank can't even get that right then they have no business existing. If any banking lawyer is confused on that, they should go into a different line of business.

Almost all the rules are predicated on requiring good faith practices from an industry with a history of systemic bad faith practices.

Yeah, current financial regulation is a distinctly ‘faith-based’ initiative.

I think you forgot the /s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because the Fed/FDIC failed at bank supervision first. Whether or not it was Thiel (there’s a whole host of smaller, but still quite noxious fish, that were almost certainly involved), the concentration of economic interests at SVB should *never* have been allowed to happen. The people who matter learned nothing from 2008 and this isn’t the first time that’s been made apparent.

Actually, the issue of risk from uninsured depositors never came up in 2008. In fact, with the exception with Indy Mac, there were no runs. One of the lessons of 2008 is how sticky deposits can be even at very troubled banks. Clear now that can no longer be assumed.

Way to do painfully literal-minded and missing the point: no one admits that coddling rich turds, what our politics and by extension our bank regulations does, results in their causing serious, widespread damage. That it wasn’t an issue in 2008 shouldn’t matter all that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know for those shouting more regulation, regulators can always ignore what they regulate.

Remember Sheila Bair before Indymac Bank went poof?

Remember the SEC browsing porn all day and ignoring the Bernie Madoff debacle?

Congressional democrats and Franklin Raines telling everyone there is no problem before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?

Wachovia? Lehman? The S&L crisis and how congress played dumb with the Keating Five?

Banks are subject to thousands of Federal Register pages of regulation. Wouldn't be surprised if it is tens of thousands. It is not hard to see how the basics of running a bank well could be missed given the massive amount of potential compliance pitfalls.

Most of the regulations are simple requirements to make sure they have sufficient reserves, don’t have them in excessively risky investments, and don’t defraud their shareholders or customers. Regulations did not cause this. The bankers and the VCs did this to themselves.

You are clearly not a banking lawyer. There is nothing simple about the complex of rules they are subject to and they are rife with conflicting incentives. And there is an entire separate body of consumer regulations, and AML/CFT requirements.

DP - I'm no banking lawyer but it should be crystal clear that the highest-priority, and inviolate incentives and guiding principles should be fiduciary responsibility and minimizing risk for those whose money they hold. If a bank can't even get that right then they have no business existing. If any banking lawyer is confused on that, they should go into a different line of business.

Almost all the rules are predicated on requiring good faith practices from an industry with a history of systemic bad faith practices.

Yeah, current financial regulation is a distinctly ‘faith-based’ initiative.

I think you forgot the /s.

Actually, I am dead serious. It’s largely hokum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because the Fed/FDIC failed at bank supervision first. Whether or not it was Thiel (there’s a whole host of smaller, but still quite noxious fish, that were almost certainly involved), the concentration of economic interests at SVB should *never* have been allowed to happen. The people who matter learned nothing from 2008 and this isn’t the first time that’s been made apparent.

Actually, the issue of risk from uninsured depositors never came up in 2008. In fact, with the exception with Indy Mac, there were no runs. One of the lessons of 2008 is how sticky deposits can be even at very troubled banks. Clear now that can no longer be assumed.

Income inequality has increased since then. SVB had less than 40,000 depositors. It was high net worth individuals that did this run and Credit Suisses. All of our regulations are built around defending against risks from the poors. But it's not the poors that threaten the system today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because unfortunately they had every right to do what they did. Assuming that is that they weren't also shorting the stock. Can't legislate morality. SVB also knew what type of person he is so it still comes back to poor risk management.

In the not too distant past bank regulators would have been very clear that hyper-concentrated deposits would pose a great risk. Unfortunately, banking regulation hasn’t done enough to get smarter since the financial crisis of 2008 to ???. It’s really not about legislating morality, it’s about old fashioned prudence in preventing disaster.

Would they? I can't think of a regulation that would have applied. App makers, influencers and crypto enthusiasts aren't a standardized demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have done with Iceland did in '08. Let the banks fail, bail out the consumers, and prosecute the bankers.

This is a lot easier in a country with less than 400,000 people.

+1 Also, most of the country is uninhabited, and it has restrictive immigration policies.

And has a robust fishing industry

Plus cheap thermal energy.

The Icelandic crisis was due to “hot money” deposit flows, similar to SVB. UK citizens were putting their deposits in Icelandic banks, which paid significantly higher rates of interest than banks in the UK. When the financial crisis happened, UK and other foreign depositors quickly withdrew their money from Icelandic banks and those banks had to try to try to sell long dated mortgage backed securities that were suddenly worth a lot less than their par value.

It’s a similar situation as SVB - it was a liquidity issue that led to bank run.

The proximate cause of almost every bank failure is lack of liquidity. (Barings come to mind as a large exception.) The story of why liquidity dried up at particular failed banks varies.

SVB suffered from a uniquely narrow set of depositors, their fickle behavior is the proximate liquidity issues.

Fickle behavior, egged on by Peter Thiel and a few others. Why isn't he being held accountable for the banks' losses? Why does everyone keep making lame excuses for billionaires and big banks?

Because the Fed/FDIC failed at bank supervision first. Whether or not it was Thiel (there’s a whole host of smaller, but still quite noxious fish, that were almost certainly involved), the concentration of economic interests at SVB should *never* have been allowed to happen. The people who matter learned nothing from 2008 and this isn’t the first time that’s been made apparent.

Actually, the issue of risk from uninsured depositors never came up in 2008. In fact, with the exception with Indy Mac, there were no runs. One of the lessons of 2008 is how sticky deposits can be even at very troubled banks. Clear now that can no longer be assumed.

Income inequality has increased since then. SVB had less than 40,000 depositors. It was high net worth individuals that did this run and Credit Suisses. All of our regulations are built around defending against risks from the poors. But it's not the poors that threaten the system today.

The more Washington DC does, the more income inequality we have.

What does that tell you?