Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Finance] SVB - New banking crisis looming?











beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,312
Can you explain this more? I get that as yields go up, bond prices go down. Interest rates/yields are higher now than a few years ago, so bond prices are lower (I think that's right?). Why is that a problem in this situation?
there's a couple of things, one technical i dont really get, the other simple enough: if they are offering 1.5% interest and you get 4% in gov bonds, you withdraw to put the money there instead. the technical one is to do with the bank investing in bonds that are now worth significantly less than when bought, they are tied to those earlier bond prices. as they get affected by the simple issue (people withdrawing for better returns) they become more at risk of exposing the complex issue (illiquid long term assets). other banks may have kept a more fluid balance sheet, selling and rebuying bonds as prices changed and not as exposed to the second.
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
There is moral hazard in bailing out a bank or its customers. It is up to shareholders to prudently manage the business and it is up to customers not to place too much of their funds with one niche bank. If the Government steps in then risk decision making will get even worse because of that safety blanket. I thought we had been through all of us 2008-13.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
there's a couple of things, one technical i dont really get, the other simple enough: if they are offering 1.5% interest and you get 4% in gov bonds, you withdraw to put the money there instead. the technical one is to do with the bank investing in bonds that are now worth significantly less than when bought, they are tied to those earlier bond prices. as they get affected by the simple issue (people withdrawing for better returns) they become more at risk of exposing the complex issue (illiquid long term assets). other banks may have kept a more fluid balance sheet, selling and rebuying bonds as prices changed and not as exposed to the second.
The value of the bonds on their balance sheet declines as their bond prices fall in value. Consequently they have declining capital and counterparties pull credit and trading lines. Bit of a disaster for a bank. They have taken too much risk. Same old same old.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,481
Burgess Hill
The value of the bonds on their balance sheet declines as their bond prices fall in value. Consequently they have declining capital and counterparties pull credit and trading lines. Bit of a disaster for a bank. They have taken too much risk. Same old same old.
I do find it odd the low interest bonds they were holding ‘to maturity’ didn’t need to be marked to market - thereby distorting the balance sheet. Even if they had though, the collapse still could have been avoided - they messed up strategically with how they communicated with the market and their clients, which caused the run on the bank - a lot of their clients were VC firms who are smarter than they are. FDIC are covering all deposits (including those above 250k) as necessary.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,312
The value of the bonds on their balance sheet declines as their bond prices fall in value. Consequently they have declining capital and counterparties pull credit and trading lines. Bit of a disaster for a bank. They have taken too much risk. Same old same old.
as i have read, this isn't quite the case. they've invested too heavily in the wrong sort of bond, that are held to end of the term, rather than more liquid bonds they could sell day to day. mis-managed, not too much risk.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
as i have read, this isn't quite the case. they've invested too heavily in the wrong sort of bond, that are held to end of the term, rather than more liquid bonds they could sell day to day. mis-managed, not too much risk.
Presumably that choice of bond would have earned a higher return relative to more liquid bonds ? The strategy would have paid off in a stable bond price environment. It could be argued that they took the risk of a low probability outcome that has actually come to pass. I am only speculating though. First I had heard of this bank was yesterday.
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
I do find it odd the low interest bonds they were holding ‘to maturity’ didn’t need to be marked to market - thereby distorting the balance sheet. Even if they had though, the collapse still could have been avoided - they messed up strategically with how they communicated with the market and their clients, which caused the run on the bank - a lot of their clients were VC firms who are smarter than they are. FDIC are covering all deposits (including those above 250k) as necessary.
Yes, financial market accounting regulation still has a long way to go and there are a lot of vested interests trying to roll it back.
 






dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,481
Burgess Hill
Yes, financial market accounting regulation still has a long way to go and there are a lot of vested interests trying to roll it back.
US rules were relaxed in 2015 - allowing SVB to do what they did…..after lobbying to the Senate…….by SVB’s president

 




Super Steve Earle

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
8,364
North of Brighton
I assume tax payers will bail out the guarantees. What a clever system that capitalism is. Meanwhile Aramco made $161 billion profit.
SVB UK bought by HSBC for £1 and will take over all their assets and liabilities. No cost to the UK taxpayer. Thank goodness for capitalism.
 




BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,357
There is moral hazard in bailing out a bank or its customers. It is up to shareholders to prudently manage the business and it is up to customers not to place too much of their funds with one niche bank. If the Government steps in then risk decision making will get even worse because of that safety blanket. I thought we had been through all of us 2008-13.
All very well for individuals,but in this instance, rather more tricky for those tech businesses who banked with SVB to spread their funds all about the place. Many companies must be mightily relieved that the bank has been purchased by HSBC. Deep shit otherwise.
 




ForestRowSeagull

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2011
959
Now Brixton
All above points are pretty much spot on. They duration matched their assets with govt bonds, however they've obviously taken a hammering with yields going from circa 1% to 5%. A run on the bank would force them to sell those bonds at a loss, meaning there is a big gap between what they have and what they owe. As above also they'd classed these as held to maturity, and weren't marking them to market, which seems naive at best.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,312
not over yet, shares in another US bank First Republic are plummeting in pre-market trading.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here