Dave, you said you've "read some fairly detailed analyses of other banks’ balance sheets, and it seems that, for the most part, other major banks in the U.S. are in much better positions than SVB and Signature Bank." However, I thought depending on how a bank's assets are classified they don't have to update their balance sheet showing major drops in asset values, so couldn't things be much worse than they appear?
Chase Asset Management released an analysis of major bank holdings adjusted for current values of bond holdings to based on Chase's own analysis, which is what I was looking at. SVB is by far the worst of the group
The problem is with mid-level banks that were deregulated in 2018. Bring the regulations back and we will be fine. Of course with today's House that won't happen.
They were not deregulated. The threshold amount requiring them to undergo a Stress Test analysis was raised to be over about $250B. The same regulations applied though.
Curious how investing in bonds is considered a problem and was only allowed due to deregulation in 2018. SVB was considered very conservative compared to most other banks.
Mercury Bank (not actually a bank, but a banking platform) has FDIC insurance up to $3M because when you deposit with them, they spread it across several partner "actual" banks. This is a super easy option.
Great Article, but the failing of these 2 banks added to the MESS we are in. Can you explain the rest of the banking deregulation's that was done in 2018 ?
Wait a sec: Why is anyone bailing out depositors who had funds in there above the $250K mark? They knew that money was uninsured. They could have deposited it elsewhere. Also, why is anyone bailing out tech companies or VCs who made risky, greedy bets in 2021 based on what people were doing during the incredibly specialized times of a global pandemic? By 2021 (or whenever you could have guessed), every other industry was trying to make things "return to normal." I don't think that Zoom will go away, but things like airlines or commercial real estate would desperately like things to go back to normal. And Pharma was working hard on vaccines and treatments. It would great if all Americans had high-speed internet, but we are a couple of decades from that. So if you are a techno investor in 2021, you have to know that you are making a bet based on a specialized and short-term set of conditions.
Totally get your point. On the other hand, to do otherwise would conceivably result in a domino effect ending with the FDIC being unable to foot the bill for even <$250k investments. I think a better question is, why did regulators fall asleep on the job with SVB, and why did the governors who put the regulators in place allow themselves to be so influenced by banking lobby money?
Yeah, I get the problem of a nation-wide (and global?) bank run. But I wasn't *arguing* that depositors ought to lose, SVP ought to fail and let everyone else with less than $250K deposited in anyone one bank rest assured that the FDIC system is alive and well, solvent and doing what it was designed to do: Insure the deposits of the "little guy." My question was a real one, not a rhetorical one. And my question was, actually, about another way to prevent a bank run. It seems to me that none of these little guys nor non-failing, not over-exposed, (risk-happy? unscrupulous?) banks need to worry about their deposits *if* they color within the lines set out by the FDIC. In other words, the other way to prevent a bank run is for those who played within the rules to continue to benefit from deposit insurance and allow those who were sure they could ignore those safeguards to bask in the consequences of their decision. Since I (read: me as an individual or me as a more conservative bank) don't have uninsured deposits, I don't have to care about what happens to SVP. But that only happens if the government doesn't ignore the limits imposed by the FDIC, bail out those banks who flouted them, and teach Big Banking (as well as, say, the Texas power grid) that staying within regulation isn't actually required because they'll be bailed out any way.
Thanks Dave! I think that on it's own this could remain a fairly isolated issue(I hope). Banks are businesses, this particular bank(s) had a bad business plan and failed. It's a harsh reality challenging the age old idea that banks are nothing more than a safe place to store your money. I expect that as long as everybody stays calm and informed, things will be just fine. Because like you said, bank runs are often the result of fear and panic. Which is often lead by uneducated emotions. This article is a refreshing explanation that is not looking to get attention or views like your find especially on youtube these days. Thanks for that, and thanks for all the work that you do for us here on BP!