Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why the hell were they not hedging interest rate risks? That’s what is galling. They pretty much violated some of the most basic tenets of bank risk mgmt….and this was a huge bank! Even rinky-dink ag banks that deal with ag futures buy hedge protection. This isn’t sophisticated stuff for a bank of this size.
Isn’t this what a stress test would be designed to indicate??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think some of you should read more books.
1. SVB had a liquidity problem, not an asset problem. Failure had nothing to do with “bad loans” to Tech or Crypto. (If anything they were locked into “bad loans” to the US Govt in low rate Treasuries, which all banks hold at ridiculous levels because the law says USG debt is infallible and safe so banks must hold a lot… hmmm.)
2. Depositors insured and uninsured will recoup all of the money. Insured by Monday. Uninsured 50%+ next week, the remainder to follow.
3. 97% uninsured deposits is a lot. But it has nothing to do with brokered deposits. Tech, VC, etc kept their cash there because SVB catered to those sectors and until the last few weeks SVB was adored for doing so.
4. Systemic risk is minimal. This ain’t Lehman. There will be some ripples, but that’s it. No need to panic.
why do you assume the uninsured deposits will be returned next week? can the FDIC solve the liquidity problem? and then what happens when fhe startups default on their loans?
you sound like a finance bro. so sure of yourself.
You are very clueless about start ups. Without access to deposits, payroll will quickly be missed and these places will fold fast. That will hit the VCs that funded them. It’s a house of cards. Missing payroll for a small business is the end.
Anonymous wrote:Why the hell were they not hedging interest rate risks? That’s what is galling. They pretty much violated some of the most basic tenets of bank risk mgmt….and this was a huge bank! Even rinky-dink ag banks that deal with ag futures buy hedge protection. This isn’t sophisticated stuff for a bank of this size.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think some of you should read more books.
1. SVB had a liquidity problem, not an asset problem. Failure had nothing to do with “bad loans” to Tech or Crypto. (If anything they were locked into “bad loans” to the US Govt in low rate Treasuries, which all banks hold at ridiculous levels because the law says USG debt is infallible and safe so banks must hold a lot… hmmm.)
2. Depositors insured and uninsured will recoup all of the money. Insured by Monday. Uninsured 50%+ next week, the remainder to follow.
3. 97% uninsured deposits is a lot. But it has nothing to do with brokered deposits. Tech, VC, etc kept their cash there because SVB catered to those sectors and until the last few weeks SVB was adored for doing so.
4. Systemic risk is minimal. This ain’t Lehman. There will be some ripples, but that’s it. No need to panic.
why do you assume the uninsured deposits will be returned next week? can the FDIC solve the liquidity problem? and then what happens when fhe startups default on their loans?
you sound like a finance bro. so sure of yourself.
You are very clueless about start ups. Without access to deposits, payroll will quickly be missed and these places will fold fast. That will hit the VCs that funded them. It’s a house of cards. Missing payroll for a small business is the end.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think some of you should read more books.
1. SVB had a liquidity problem, not an asset problem. Failure had nothing to do with “bad loans” to Tech or Crypto. (If anything they were locked into “bad loans” to the US Govt in low rate Treasuries, which all banks hold at ridiculous levels because the law says USG debt is infallible and safe so banks must hold a lot… hmmm.)
2. Depositors insured and uninsured will recoup all of the money. Insured by Monday. Uninsured 50%+ next week, the remainder to follow.
3. 97% uninsured deposits is a lot. But it has nothing to do with brokered deposits. Tech, VC, etc kept their cash there because SVB catered to those sectors and until the last few weeks SVB was adored for doing so.
4. Systemic risk is minimal. This ain’t Lehman. There will be some ripples, but that’s it. No need to panic.
why do you assume the uninsured deposits will be returned next week? can the FDIC solve the liquidity problem? and then what happens when fhe startups default on their loans?
you sound like a finance bro. so sure of yourself.
Anonymous wrote:I think some of you should read more books.
1. SVB had a liquidity problem, not an asset problem. Failure had nothing to do with “bad loans” to Tech or Crypto. (If anything they were locked into “bad loans” to the US Govt in low rate Treasuries, which all banks hold at ridiculous levels because the law says USG debt is infallible and safe so banks must hold a lot… hmmm.)
2. Depositors insured and uninsured will recoup all of the money. Insured by Monday. Uninsured 50%+ next week, the remainder to follow.
3. 97% uninsured deposits is a lot. But it has nothing to do with brokered deposits. Tech, VC, etc kept their cash there because SVB catered to those sectors and until the last few weeks SVB was adored for doing so.
4. Systemic risk is minimal. This ain’t Lehman. There will be some ripples, but that’s it. No need to panic.
Anonymous wrote:Why the hell were they not hedging interest rate risks? That’s what is galling. They pretty much violated some of the most basic tenets of bank risk mgmt….and this was a huge bank! Even rinky-dink ag banks that deal with ag futures buy hedge protection. This isn’t sophisticated stuff for a bank of this size.

Anonymous wrote:+1 to the yikes. I think some of the "financial system going to fail" screamers are political actors, perhaps Russian perhaps not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is bad. For those of you that are going to say “this is a west coast big tech problem” it’s going to be felt nationwide, especially given the remote work environment.
How does remote work relate to this?
This was not about remote work. It was about SVB who handed out loans like crazy during the 2020-21 tech boom. Then when tech started falling apart the last year, they took the money out the bank. Combined with bonds falling and rising interest rates, more investors pulled out. The writing was on the wall 2 years ago. Basically; the Freddie/Fannie/Lehman 2007 situation all over again except instead of housing, it was tech startups.
Virtually every word you wrote is wrong.