Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

LuckyCharms

(20,941 posts)
Sun Mar 12, 2023, 12:17 PM Mar 2023

As I understand it, here's a very simplistic explanation of what happened with Silicon Valley Bank. [View all]

Last edited Sun Mar 12, 2023, 01:01 PM - Edit history (2)

Large depositors place their money into accounts at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB).

Banks want to earn a return on that deposited money, instead of letting it sit there, earning nothing for them.

Banks invest deposited amounts into some type of financial vehicle in order to get a return on the deposited funds for themselves. For example: money market funds, CD's, mortgage backed securities, maybe a small portion into the stock market, etc.

Risk management at a bank would perform detailed analyses to make sure that the investments the bank made with deposited money would not hamper the ability for bank customers to withdraw their funds. This analysis would include balancing the risks inherent in whatever the bank invested the depositor's funds in . The bank would need to make worse case assumptions to ensure that they are liquid enough to provide the cash to customers in cases where, for example, withdrawals would for some reason increase by X%. In other words, the bank would have to be very conservative and assume an increase in normal withdrawal rates. They would have to factor in a "buffer" so to speak, should withdrawals increase. This means that a particular percentage of SVB's investments would have to remain very liquid (quickly and easily converted to cash).

Before Trump took office, certain banks holding $X in deposits were subject to "stress tests" by federal regulators to ensure the banks were liquid enough to provide depositors their money should the amount of withdrawals increase above a "normal" amount.

Trump did away with the regulations that required certain banks to be stress tested to ensure that their investments, using depositor's money, were not subject to unusual risk.

SBV over-weighted the amount of depositor's funds that were used to buy long-dated government bonds.

Long dated government bonds are subject to a particular type of risk known as "interest rate risk".

Here's the mechanics of this risk:

Bank buys a government bond with depositor's money in order to earn a return on that money for themselves. The bond has a par value (face value) of $1,000, and since the bank was purchasing these bonds when interest rates were low, the bond pays 1% interest per annum (I'm just making up numbers here for this example).

The fed increases interest rates in order to try to slow down inflation. This means that all interest rates rise. Credit card interest, savings deposit interest, money market interest, mortgage interest, etc.

A large depositor who placed cash into an SVB account comes in and wants to withdraw $200 million. Because the bank placed most of their deposited funds into government bonds (they over-weighted their investments in bonds and did not hold enough deposits in more liquid investments like cash or money market funds), the bank does not immediately have the cash to give to the person making the large withdrawal.

To get the $200 million to the person withdrawing, the bank has to go out and sell $200 million of the bonds they bought.

However, now they have to find a buyer for the bonds on the open bond market. The bonds are paying only 1% interest since the bank bought them when interest rates were low. The person who is buying the bonds from the bank is going to want to earn more than 1% interest, because interest rates are higher now, and more than 1% can be made in other investments by the bond purchaser.

So in order to make a percentage greater than 1%, the purchaser of the bonds will not buy the bonds for what the bank paid for them ($200 million). The purchaser of the bonds will pay less than the face value of the bonds, so his return will be comparable to that of which could be made in other investments. Therefore, the bank loses money on the bonds that they sell in order to cover the withdrawal.

Selling bonds takes a bit of time, which means that if the bank is over-weighted in government bonds, and don't have enough liquid assets to cover the withdrawal, the the person trying to withdraw their money may have to wait until the bank sells some bonds for cash in order to give the money back to the depositor.

Once this happens a few times, word gets out, and more and more people start withdrawing their money from the bank out of concern for the banks stability.

Summary:

Trump eliminated regulations for certain banks to be stress tested in order to ensure that they are liquid enough to provide customers with their funds should the amount of withdrawals increase above a normal amount.

78 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thank you! ggma Mar 2023 #1
That is a nice summary lapfog_1 Mar 2023 #2
Correction: Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #3
Correction Johnny2X2X Mar 2023 #8
I choose to focus on the entire collection of legislators who passed this law Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #12
I'll choose to focus on those who tried to stop it Johnny2X2X Mar 2023 #14
Lemme guess: Banks must have paid high-priced LOBBYISTS to promise campaign donations Justice matters. Mar 2023 #16
Thank you for some critical thinking instead of falling for consertive Stargazer99 Mar 2023 #68
Isn't it amazing how it only works one way too? Johnny2X2X Mar 2023 #73
Well, I would encourage you to downplay it maxrandb Mar 2023 #23
I've always wondered about you. DoBotherMe Mar 2023 #30
Have you? Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #45
Same here. wnylib Mar 2023 #70
"entire collection" krkaufman Mar 2023 #78
*cough cough* W_HAMILTON Mar 2023 #43
You can assume my contempt for the anti-worker, fascist republicans as a given. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #46
You find it healthier for you to criticize Democrats over Republicans? W_HAMILTON Mar 2023 #55
If it's good enough for Reuben Gallego, it's good enough for me. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #60
Is he slamming """Democrats""" for Sinema's actions? W_HAMILTON Mar 2023 #61
Well, if your mind is made up, I need say no more Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #62
HA! Good one. betsuni Mar 2023 #69
+1 progressoid Mar 2023 #66
Does anyone have a list of the 17 Ds who voted for it? nt in2herbs Mar 2023 #4
No Johnny2X2X Mar 2023 #17
A-fucking-men. W_HAMILTON Mar 2023 #44
sure. progressoid Mar 2023 #67
Thank you n/t Delphinus Mar 2023 #71
Is the fed trying to tank the economy and Biden? usonian Mar 2023 #5
I don't know about the FED, but I think Thiel would definitely try to harm Biden politically. Lonestarblue Mar 2023 #9
I agree about powell.. sprinkleeninow Mar 2023 #63
Yep...you got it...when Fed began to raise rates...the bank got squeezed as the bonds lost market values... ashredux Mar 2023 #6
Dumb on the part of the bank, not the Fed. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #13
+1 dalton99a Mar 2023 #20
Pardon if that was not clear.....THE STUPID BANK MANAGEMENT ashredux Mar 2023 #24
+1, but the bank ... KNEW ... the feds were going to increase rates and held that dumb position uponit7771 Mar 2023 #52
This is a good analysis but it over looks one thing. flashman13 Mar 2023 #7
Powell shares blame for waiting too long to begin hikes Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #15
Nope.... It was not the federal reserves fault. The bank management did not do their job. ashredux Mar 2023 #26
I think you are missing the big picture. While a single bank can suffer from bad decisions, flashman13 Mar 2023 #48
"because the balance sheets of many other institutions look the same as SVB." SVB held on to bonds uponit7771 Mar 2023 #53
That's the story I've heard paleotn Mar 2023 #10
ABSOLUTELY spot on point! flashman13 Mar 2023 #49
Mine's simpler Warpy Mar 2023 #11
What happened w/this? Do all these partners have exposure to this collapse at the Wall Street Backseat Driver Mar 2023 #18
Researching stuff too, I also came across this Goldman-Sak "Marcus" easy to start high-yield Backseat Driver Mar 2023 #31
Thanks for this great information. Knowledge is good, even if you have no $$$. n/t Paper Roses Mar 2023 #19
Two additional points... brooklynite Mar 2023 #21
Good points. n/t LuckyCharms Mar 2023 #22
Again spot on! It is just unforgiving mathmatics. flashman13 Mar 2023 #50
So SVB did nothing wrong. Just too conservative with investments mainer Mar 2023 #25
They did everything wrong. They failed banking 101. ashredux Mar 2023 #27
So incompetence but not corruption? mainer Mar 2023 #34
This point, not enough data to make that determination. But crypto might be in the mix. ashredux Mar 2023 #38
They played fast and loose in regard to risk management. LuckyCharms Mar 2023 #33
Disagree, SVB should've known their bonds were going to lose at minimum short term value and ... uponit7771 Mar 2023 #54
Hedging is prudent investment strategy. jaxexpat Mar 2023 #28
Thanks for the clear summary and discussion jmbar2 Mar 2023 #29
Cripto is the 2022's Tulip Bulb folly ashredux Mar 2023 #41
In some ways, like the Orange County bankruptcy in 1994 peppertree Mar 2023 #32
Very nice synopsis of it tornado34jh Mar 2023 #35
Well, I recall 2008, and some awfully big, big boys failed.... You had to keep certain regulations in ashredux Mar 2023 #39
Indeed tornado34jh Mar 2023 #42
Yep...that appears correct... ashredux Mar 2023 #47
Where is the depositors' money? mainer Mar 2023 #36
If they are far over weighted in long term bonds, LuckyCharms Mar 2023 #37
You've said this a few times now and it's not quite accurate; A HERETIC I AM Mar 2023 #56
Agree. LuckyCharms Mar 2023 #58
Afraid not.... long-term bonds they held are selling at a discount... ashredux Mar 2023 #40
YEP!! "SBV over-weighted the amount of depositor's funds that were used to buy [FED BONDs]" uponit7771 Mar 2023 #51
Can anyone knowledgeable comment on this Twitter thread? mainer Mar 2023 #57
Banks should not "just need time" to get you your money. LuckyCharms Mar 2023 #59
Hard to sell bonds when the Federal Reserve is constricting M1 money supply. roamer65 Mar 2023 #64
I am wondering if they were also involved in the Bitcoin debacle..... William Gustafson Mar 2023 #65
All banks are insolvent by definition lonely bird Mar 2023 #72
I understand this is a blow to new tech development orangecrush Mar 2023 #74
Can I leave this here? DJ Porkchop Mar 2023 #75
the imbecile republican way - they are stupid and drag the rest of us down samsingh Mar 2023 #76
Doesn't this mean that the government can simply return the bonds ecstatic Mar 2023 #77
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»As I understand it, here'...