News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank. Parent comment

Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by walrus01 on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:31PM (#35098784)
> As a result, they purchased a large amount (over $80bn!) in mortgage backed securities (MBS)

Do we now have people making decisions on stuff like this who are too young or clueless to remember what happened with the 2004-2007 mortgage backed security bubble that popped in the 2008-2009 financial crisis? Seriously? Did nobody learn the lessons on this? Countrywide and other originators of MBS and CDOs?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by SilasX on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:46PM (#35099043)
The error wasn’t that the mortgages defaulted too much (like in the ‘08 crisis) but that interest rates went up, which is a distinct problem, and, from the comments in these discussions, not something that the capital requirements adequately capture.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by alexlesuper on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:01PM (#35099277)
The problem is with MBS but not for the same reason.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by mason55 on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:17PM (#35099415)
> Did nobody learn the lessons on this?

I'm not sure you learned the lessons. Other than MBS being coincidentally involved, this has literally nothing to do with 2008.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by dahfizz on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:19PM (#35099435)
Do you think MBS are always and forever a bad investment because of a bubble 15 years ago?

The MBS wasn't even the problem here. If they had 10Y corporate bonds or Treasury notes paying the same rate, they would have had the same problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by walrus01 on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:44PM (#35099810)
To be clear, I think MBS are morally wrong in how they're implemented in the market, yes.

A bubble 15 years ago? We're in a massive housing price increase bubble now.

Buying $80bn of MBS in the middle of a well-known housing price bubble is catastrophically stupid.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by dragonwriter on Friday March 10, 2023 @03:17PM (#35100313)
> Do you think MBS are always and forever a bad investment because of a bubble 15 years ago?

I think heavy exposure to a single type of long-term asset for a retail bank is always going to be a bad investment decisions, because risks materialize, and correlated risks tend to materialize together, and when a retail bank suddenly lacks liquidity...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by twblalock on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:39PM (#35099728)
Any investments whose value was sensitive to the Fed's rates would have had the exact same problem.

In 2008 MBSes were bad because the underlying value of the investment turned out to be bad. That's not happening this time. All that's happening is the same thing that happens to any bonds -- when rates increase, older lower-rate bonds lose value because why would anyone pay full price for them when they can get a new one with a higher rate?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by patmorgan23 on Friday March 10, 2023 @11:20PM (#35105291)
The underlying problem in the 08 collapse was poor/non-existent underwriting of the mortgages and those loans being rated AAA when packaged in an MBS. When the economy slowed just a bit people started defaulting because originators were writing NINJ (No Income, No Job) loans, something that is illegal today.

This situation today has nothing to do with the failure of the MBS'S to payout like 08.

[ Parent | on HN ]