long dated bonds is not risk taking though. in fact it's part of the regulations in some cases, they have to hold more bonds than other investments to keep their balance sheet more stable (and create more demand for gov bonds...).
the particular case of SVB and to some extent CS show you cant...
as i understand it, Saudi fund cant inject more without triggering threshold for a buyout offer.
its been commented today how poor the response if from Swiss regulator, seems like they forgot its their bag and they cant wait for a EU bailout. bit like zero hedge "ECB do something" 🙄 :jester:
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.
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...
lessons were learnt problem is to do with interest rates now much higher than the bond rates locked into a few years ago. not subprime but gov bonds and similar are worth less than getting a new bond or bank rate at today's rates. awkward.
this seems to be the largest market fear, overlooked normally. risk that now its been higlighted, companies will pull some money from banks to others to cover monthly expenses. that will be a signifcant shock wave through the banking sector.
was following as fall out from the takedown of crypto friendly bank Silvergate. they are/were completely solvent and above board 3 days ago, however they got look at as suspect and some orgs started pulling cash forcing them to sell long date bonds. these trade a discount to nominal value, so...