Forbes Magazine: How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

Do you think 3% or 10% would be enough to keep SVB liquid when their depositors all
tried to withdraw their funds at the same time?
You want to prevent something that rarely if ever happens.

10% reserves protects almost all bank runs long enough to allow recovery
 
You want to prevent something that rarely if ever happens.

10% reserves protects almost all bank runs long enough to allow recovery

You want to prevent something that rarely if ever happens.

I do?

10% reserves protects almost all bank runs long enough to allow recovery

Almost.
 
Crappy mortgages is the issue.
Actually it’s the fact that crappy mortgages were bundled with good ones and the whole thing sold as AAA which was wrong.

And THEN the same people that did that were allowed to bet AGAINST those mortgages
 
They had to do it.

I don't like it any more than you do....but they had to stem the bleeding early.

Inflation caused this collapse. The banks Treasury Bonds were underwater. Read g5000 thread...it's a good one.

We always "have" to do it to protect wealthy investors. This place burns down at the mention of putting even a tiny morsel of effort into addressing the risks of being poor but addressing the risks to investors is always a "have to" priority.

Thanks for the recommendation I'll go read through that thread.
 
We always "have" to do it to protect wealthy investors. This place burns down at the mention of putting even a tiny morsel of effort into addressing the risks of being poor but addressing the risks to investors is always a "have to" priority.

Thanks for the recommendation I'll go read through that thread.
I believe they are only insuring depositors who, through no fault of their own happened to keep their money in a bank that failed.

My understanding is that the Fed ruled out bailing out investors.

How this will affect the "bank founders" money that they attempted to put before the bank failed...I do not know.
 
For fellow USMB finance geeks:

Their Balance Sheet is showing $91B in bond holdings, specifically marked "Held to Maturity" and not marked to market. Granted, it's an annual report.

So the liquidation value of those things will be, what, $75B, somewhere around there? They're mostly 10+ year maturities, so they've lost a ton. And who knows how liquid that market is right now, so it could be worse if they tried to sell. Total Equity is already below $0 after losses.

So the Balance Sheet doesn't give you an accurate representation of real value. You can't compute interest rate risk unless you dig into the maturities.

 
Last edited:
Actually it’s the fact that crappy mortgages were bundled with good ones and the whole thing sold as AAA which was wrong.

And THEN the same people that did that were allowed to bet AGAINST those mortgages

If you write a crappy mortgage and hold it, you lose money.
If you write a crappy mortgage and sell it, the buyer loses money.
Either way, somebody loses money. Enough people lose enough money,
even good mortgages can end up going bad.

And THEN the same people that did that were allowed to bet AGAINST those mortgages

Who was their counterparty on those bets?
 
If you write a crappy mortgage and hold it, you lose money.
If you write a crappy mortgage and sell it, the buyer loses money.
Either way, somebody loses money. Enough people lose enough money,
even good mortgages can end up going bad.

And THEN the same people that did that were allowed to bet AGAINST those mortgages

Who was their counterparty on those bets?
Wtf are you babbling about?
 

Forum List

Back
Top