At 10x leverage, when you're correctly assuming your customers will be bailed by the government instead of you getting criminally prosecuted, the worst you can lose is 100% of your money. With the kind of leverage you get in a bank, you don't even need to have positive expectation value investment to have positive expectation value for the bank shareholders.
even with completely trash odds of 50% chance of losing it all and 50% chance of earning only 20% with 10x free client deposit leverage, your expectation value is still 100%!
This is the moral hazard you're dealing with. At 10x leverage ratios of banks, they can take the worst possible bets and still win so long as their maximal loss is just losing all the investment.
You're just encouraging this behavior. This latest decision gives a huge incentives to all banks out there to blow out. Just the incentive structure alone is enough to collapse the entire financial system at this point. It was already eating itself and it's only going to get worse.
It's just a matter of time before they blow it beyond repair.
All owners of the bank will end up with nothing, I think that's a good enough deterrence against bad things.
No proof at the moment, but from what I've read several of the executives conveniently sold a lot of their stock more or less at the same time right before this kicked off. Guarantee at least some of that was some insider golden-parachuting.
Edit: Also, the CEO sold stock not even two weeks in advance https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/svb-chief...
These things can come at you fast. They probably put in the trade instructions sometime last year and they are not permitted to make modifications to the 10b5-1 when they do come into material non-public information as that is itself insider trading.
Trading (or changing a 10b5-1 plan) while in possession of material non-public information, whether in your favor or not, is insider trading.
Canceling a 10b5-1 is not in and of itself a violation, correct, but it can kill your affirmative defense as it jeopardizes the good faith element.
However, they would have had to have entered into the 10b5-1 prior to them coming into material nonpublic information in the first place for it to have been valid at all. My point is they made the decision to sell before they knew what was happening and filed a compliant trading plan.
Sounds fair, but lucky.
They have orders of magnitude more money than most people, and will get away with no liability.
Is there a more clear cut case of insider trading? SEC should already been working on that now.
Anyhow, you're arguing that they SHOULD end up with nothing, that is an entirely different subject of its own. Because you're talking about punishment, while I'm talking about deterrence.
Punishment must be enacted from outside after the fact, while deterrence can be innate before it happens. These senior management could have years of cushy job and more equity, and now they have to rely on savings and have the SEC up their ass. It's clear which is more preferable.
Genuine question, is there any evidence that these trades were out of the norm, rather than a regular portfolio rebalancing that’s common with any employee who receives part of their comp in RSUs?
Nah. They should liquidate the owner's private property as well to cover uninsured depositor losses. Better than making them whole by printing money and having everyone else pay for it indirectly through inflation.
Minewhile these people out of their privilege as bankers got to play with much bigger leverage, while paying zero interest rates to their counterparty which turned out to be fully paid for by the government in the end.
100% investment loss in this case is hardly enough, with the leverage levels banks can access they can literally collect pennies in front of a train and have positive expectation values for shareholders, while investing in negative expectation value investments.
And they did collect pennies in front of a train. Bought 10yr treasuries at historical lows. They paid their customers nothing for it.
VC investment strategy for VC bank. They took the zero or hero attitude until the end. Again, we're taking about people with already VC mentality of "worst case 100% loss, best case 1000%".
No wonder that once VCs recognized their own shadow they fled so fast.
And now they are pretending as if it's the fate of the banking system on the line.
VC bank, managed like VC venture for VC firms. They deserve to lose VC money.
Their loans are probably also worthless than they claim, but they managed to successfully swindle the Fed in the most VC way ever with the shortest deadline. I'm betting FDIC is going to pay twice as much as expected in the end.
> worst case 100% loss, best case 1000%
See I don't understand how you can have 1000% return by buying treasuries, at any time. It was a stupid decision in hind sight, but the best case is order of magnitudes below 1000% return.
And you've put these two things right next to each other, what am I missing?
by buying with leverage? What percentage returns do you think would maintain their business?
They didn't went for the 1000%, they went for the 5-10% extra and ended up losing everything.
Had they used T-Bills or even straight up depositing it against the Federal Reserve for NO return, they would remain liquid and could now reinvest into higher yield bonds as the rates have risen. Instead they now hold 1.5% 10 year HTM bonds that are now valued at 70% original today because the prevailing rate is 4.5%.
> They would be perfectly safe have they dumped their deposits into T-Bills.
How is this different than what you described? If the rate increases beyond the coupon of a 10 year treasury, its value drops. Are you referring to extremely short term treasuries?
T-Bill: 52 weeks or less duration
T-Note: 2-10 year duration
T-Bond: > 10 year duration
"Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law."
Does this mean all American banks (indirectly bank customers) will pay to cover depositor losses that exceed insurance funds?
That's not a given since it may just reduce profits. Banking is a very competitive environment.
So the options are:
1. Banks eat the cost.
2. Banks take on more risk to cover the cost (putting the whole system at more risk).
3. Banks increase customer fees, interest rates, etc...
I don't have a crystal ball but I have a strong guess about which of these options are most likely to be implemented.
Not only will tax payers likely pay for this but the most likely tax payers to pay are the ones with the least flexibility (stuck with variable rate debt, limited banking choices, no dedicated money managers working on their behalf) aka the poorest tax payers.
If my assessment is correct, they have somehow found and settled on a solution more disgusting than a generally distributed tax payer bailout.
The Fed releases a digital dollar that you can bank without needing to be a part of this oligopoly. Banks are forced to give better terms to be attractive again, terms that will make up for the risk of the bank using your money. Deposits are no longer guaranteed because being in a bank is now a deliberate choice instead of something you're forced to do despite having money.
Banking is not competitive in any way. The small players are very risky to bank at. The big players get to be riskier because they are protected by the government.
Would you notice a 0.05% increase in fees?
Sounds like word games played by people in charge to have tax payer bailouts using two layers of obfuscation.
This is hurtful in more ways than one. Banks routinely charge all kinds of fees from account maintenance to whatever Wells Fargo did for years.
Retail banks won't let the Federal Reserve open a bank account for everyone by default with the Fed.
Either what you say is true and the retail customers are insignificant, and banks must offer no fee accounts. If not, they can't block federal reserve from creating default USD accounts for everyone.
Or they are an important part of the bank's marketing strategy or whatever. In this case, banks must lose the ability to gamble customer funds.
Which one is it?
Actually the FED is opposed to this themselves. A company called the narrow bank was going to try this. The FED refused them a banking license, all the way to court.
The FED wants deposits reinvested into the economy.
> A narrow bank takes deposits and invests the money in interest-bearing reserves deposited at the Fed. Because that’s all these banks would do, they would be very low cost and hence could pass along to depositors the interest earned on reserves, minus a small fee.
> Narrow banks could attract many large depositors, who currently receive much lower interest rates on their deposits at ordinary commercial banks.
It feels like they were offloading their cost to a service that the government maybe offers at a loss.
Hence I believe the Fed was against this to keep the economy running by 'keeping money rolling'.
This proposal for narrow banking seems to employ the government as this vault, sort of like treasury bonds that can be freely withdrawn, which seems a more significant difference.
* I am not denying that this is what the feds claimed and/or believed
Assuming it's a one time charge and not a contagion, it sounds like why we have government and FDIC.
It's more the state government budget for about 1/3 of the states in the union
I'm fairly sure the poor aren't that affected by interest rates - the very definition of being poor is not owning much in the way of assets that could earn interest...
It might seem unfair that shareholders of random other banks have to pay for this but no more unfair than accountholders of SVB paying for it.
But the end result is the same: a tax on everyone to bail out Peter Thiel and friends.
That assumes banks balance this liability by reducing payments to customers rather than reducing profits. That's a common and completely misleading claim by businesses - if they are taxed or fined, they pass it on to their customers (obviously, it's an attempt to create political support for the business).
The reality is that the ability to raise prices (or lower interest rates on deposits) depends on the elasticity. If you raise prices on your bottle of water at the supermarket, then people will just buy the bottle next to it - the water-maker will be paying and fee or tax increases out of their profits. If you have the only bottle of water in the desert, you can charge whatever you want. I would think that regular savings deposits, at least, are easily moved to another bank.
Another consideration is that if they could squeeze more out of customers, they'd probably already be doing it. By that theory, at least, they've already optimized or that and can't charge more.
However, this fee is levied on all member banks of FDIC, which is basically every bank. Thus, it creates the most natural ground for collusion, i.e. everyone implicitly agrees to pass on the fees to the customers.
More than that, a bank account is probably one of the stickiest "purchases" an average individual makes in their lives, unlike a single-use water bottle. How many people do you think has the time and energy to switch to a new bank every time there is a fee increase? Is it the individual's fault for not doing so?
Would you notice a 5 basis point change in your savings account?
How many grains of sand do you need to stack before it becomes a pile?
As you say, the what really matters is (perceived) elasticity. If a company thought they could increase profit by increasing prices then they'd just do it. Conversely if they get fined or regulated or whatever but, as expected, it doesn't affect their elasticity curve then they'll leave prices where they are. If they were acting rationally it was already at the ideal point.
To me it felt like the market collectively decided "this is a good time to squeeze our costumer and have them blame somebody else"
Then the banks figure out a way to put that money somewhere else that rewards them more than what they are giving the depositors.
Basically that’s the foundation of civilization.
Let's deposit at the bank of USA and cut out the middle man.
> Basically that’s the foundation of civilization
I think many of us would disagree.
>Revoke banks ability to invest deposits. They can't get to have the cake and eat it too. They could offer higher interest rates for non guaranteed accounts which bear risk, or zero risk for the already zero interest rates.
You are missing something crucial here - treasury bonds are a loan to the government - this is all by design.
Who will loan the government tens or hundreds of billions of dollars besides the banks? The [Fed/Treasury/FDIC] has no incentive to prevent banks from loaning customer deposits, because the Treasury needs banks to purchase government bonds
Does it? Or is this just how the system is currently designed?
50 years ago we might have asked who will provide the Fed with the gold it needs to issue enough currency to avoid deflation as the population grows exponentially.
Yes, to both questions. The US Debt is at $31 trillion, it only works as long as the system keeps feeding money into government bonds.
The entire global financial system (not just the USA; the rest of the world is dependent on the USD and US banks) is reliant on this cycle of money.
>50 years ago we might have asked who will provide the Fed with the gold it needs to issue enough currency to avoid deflation as the population grows exponentially.
It was realized the gold standard stifled growth too much, and was abandoned just about 50 years ago as well.
You can have a safe system without growth (everything Tech was built off credit/debt and castles in the sky until decades after the companies were founded) or you can have the tech industry with a debt-credit based system.
The reason why banks need to be bailed out, is because they treat treasuries as risk-free financial instruments. If they didn't get bailed out from time to time, they'd have to recognize the risk in buying treasuries.
But there seems to be a premise in this thread that the US Gov needs (as in has no other possible choice, even via legislative change) to sell treasuries in order to fundraise.
I accept that’s sort of how the current system works in that effectively the US Gov creates capital/spend in the financial system via various programs and investments and attempts to offset inflationary effects / currency deflation effects by taxation and other revenue before finally encouraging other parties to allocate capital out of the system in the form of treasuries to make up the shortfall.
Effectively as I see it a treasury is then a promise not to spend capital for the term in exchange for the promise you’ll get the expected present value of that capital returned at the conclusion of that term (or in the case of TIPS/I-Bonds, the best approximation at the actual present value of that capital at that time).
Amongst other features, this neatly “allows” the US Gov to allocate an equivalent amount of capital to a purpose it considers appropriate while theoretically lessening impacts compared to simply spending that money without the offsetting treasuries.
But I’m not entirely sure there’s some sort of fundamental rule that the US Gov with the support of the Fed “needs” anyone to buy treasuries - together they could, as an example I’m not necessarily advocating, provide a safe haven facility for anyone who wanted it and continue to influence the monetary system and zero-risk rate of return (eg by the Fed paying interest on reserve accounts as they have since 2008) while otherwise having the Fed simply create the currency the government requires for deficit expenditure (eg by directly buying treasuries from the Gov if we perpetuate the illusion) and using other fiscal policy to control the inflationary/distortion effects of this spend.
That is, I’m not sure it’s the case that the US Gov exactly needs the banks to borrow treasuries because it could not afford them not to. Rather, the value of treasuries is as a measure to absorb excess liquidity, provide safe haven, and adjust risk behaviour in the financial system.
My open question is whether the current system is the only way, yet alone the best way, to practically achieve this. goal?
I do not trust the Fed, but I Sure as shit do not trust the US Congress.
Supposedly the debt ceiling prevents runaway spending. That already doesn't work because money is loaned into existence in ever-increasing amounts.
The Treasury makes coins.
Paper money is a "Federal Reserve Note". It comes from the federal reserve not the Treasury
The Treasury creates coins or bonds. This is one of the reasons congress has floated the idea of the 10 trillion dollar coin. As it is within their power to order the Treasury to mont that. They can not order the federal reserve to make a 10 trillion dollar bill
First, there are no entities that have the amount of capital needed to keep the bond market moving besides banks. This is a $50 trillion market that makes the stock market look like a lemonade stand. I would suggest you do some research on the bond markets, it will become immediately apparent why only central and private banks have the capital necessary to drive it.
It's the nature of a credit/debt based system, which is currently in a booming credit cycle (although perhaps the end of the cycle)
As to why do banks need tax money for bailouts?
The banks don't need tax money, if you're willing to let banks fail - which would likely be healthy in the long run.
But in the short term, Joe Middle Class can't get a car loan to get a car, Wealthy Sally can't get a business loan to start a company and employ 50 people, Minimum Wage Mike can't get a home loan after saving up money for 25 years.
It's certainly a shame that banks basically face no consequences and the taxpayer has to pay for it. But people's perspective on bank bailouts changes quickly when they realize the "side effects" are their credit cards no longer exist and their loan rates tripled.
It does in the sense that the US Government will default on its financial obligations if banks don’t use deposits to buy government bonds.
Other institutions that have LPs should lend to businesses, students and home owners.
Anyway, how are you expecting to transact digitally with your paper notes?
War bonds were bought by people directly. I see no reason why we can't have the same today. God knows the US needs a WWII sized investment in repairing infrastructure.
Per the US government, the median US household has $1000/month they could invest after all ordinary expenses.
What do they claim the median household income at?
The war cost a little over $300 billion. $50 billion of that was through individual purchases of War Bonds, the rest came from banks and taxes.
Bankers and merchants have always funded the United States. A representation of Robert Morris, the "financier of the American Revolution" is painted in The Apotheosis of Washington, the fresco decorating the ceiling of the rotunda in the Capitol building where he is shown receiving a bag of gold from the god Mercury. Soldiers and supplies were paid for with "morris notes" which was a proto-currency of the US that was backed by Morris' personal fortune.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/03/how-robert-morriss-magi...
Just about 30 years later, banker Stephen Girard almost single-handedly funded the War of 1812.
Homes should be investments in the same way that a factory or warehouse is an investment. You buy instead of renting in order to fix the cost of doing business over time, not to speculate on potential future values.
And yes, that means if you picked “10y treasuries at 1.56% interest rate” back in 2021, then 80% of your deposit would now be gone. You should have picked “3m treasuries at 0.1% interest rate”.
This whole idea that a bank deposit is some magical asset that you can never lose anything on (other than through inflation) is a leaky abstraction. Like with all leaky abstractions the happy path is great, but when it starts leaking it can get real bad.
I was biased to assume insolvency rather than illiquidity.
Wait, I have a novel idea...
HOW ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STOPS BORROWING (and spending) SO MUCH DAMN MONEY!!!!
I know, crazy idea that the government should (outside extreme conditions) have a balanced budget and not run deficits in perpetuity
Why not just give every SSN/TIN a Fed account and be done with it.
No liquidity/solvency/counterparty risk. Ever.
Neobanks would be a UI on top your FedAccount. Perhaps they provide some customer service like onboarding/statements/etc.
Investment banks would be wholly different entities. Let them find business, create loans, whatever. But give them absolutely zero government backstops.
So the FDIC existing does not change how a bank behaves. From the perspective of the bank, bankruptcy and FDIC takeover are effectively the same thing.
This is literally the purpose of holding deposits for banks.
The bottom line is that letting banks invest their clients deposits, while clients - even startups that even know in advance they will need this money in short duration - will keep on blowing in our faces. It might be mortgage backed securities, or treasuries, or anything else.
It's always the same story: banks are leeching money getting rich from taking risks with everyone's money, and the risk is bailed out again and again and again by the government.
They are given government mandate to be the only way to hold money. And then a government privilege to gamble that money on whatever financial instrument that we currently pretend has no risk. And then when we discover it had risk after all, the government pays for the risk.
All the while, banks were leveraged 10x or 20x on the fake "no risk", paid 0 interest rates on deposits, and got to take all the profits from that risk.
The fact that even startups couldn't co opt away from this madness speaks volumes. They were getting leveraged with 10yr duration instruments with depositors base that they knew is burning cash.
If those startups wanted to buy 10yr bonds with their VC money, they would've done it. But the bank just got permission to gamble their clients money.
It's even worse because more than getting bailed out, the thing these VCs want the most is for the rate hikes to stop. They got to both break the system with their actions and get what they wanted.
Bank runs used to happen all the time. The fact that this is the first bank collapse we have seen in basically a lifetime is more of a miracle than anything else, and should be considered a stunning success that a bank collapse is a once in a lifetime event rather than a yearly occurrence that it used to be.
There's absolutely no excuse left for why banks get to invest any of their clients money. They get free leverage from their clients for free. They can send it to zero and the entire risk will be held by the government. That's absurd.
Revoke banks ability to invest deposits. They can't get to have the cake and eat it too. They could offer higher interest rates for non guaranteed accounts which bear risk, or zero risk for the already zero interest rates.