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
In reply to the discussion: As I understand it, here's a very simplistic explanation of what happened with Silicon Valley Bank. [View all]A HERETIC I AM
(24,829 posts)56. You've said this a few times now and it's not quite accurate;
"they need to be able to find a buyer for the bonds."
1st, the market for US Treasuries is wide, extremely deep, VERY liquid and worldwide. We are talking literally TRILLIONS of dollars worth. The idea that this bank has to "find a buyer" is somewhat misleading, as one single pass across a bond desk at any brokerage in the world would find a willing buyer for virtually any amount of any series in a matter of seconds.
2nd, you have insinuated a few times that these bonds are somewhat less than completely liquid, and that is simply not the case, for the reason I stated above. US Treasuries settle Same Day, as opposed to the traditional "Trade Plus 3" settlement of most other securities. If you put up the $200 million figure (a drop in the bucket compared to the overall size of the market) you have used numerous times for sale in the morning, by the middle of the afternoon your account would be credited with the cash. It isn't as if you would have to wait days and days or even a full 24 hour period. A number of the articles that have been linked on this subject indicate the bank sold some $21Bn of their bond portfolio, a large sum to be sure, but again, not much compared to the overall market for this paper.
Your assertion that they have sold these bonds at a loss is correct, but since these bonds are sold "Over The Counter" and on a Bid/Ask basis, that market takes into account the time to maturity, coupon, current yield trends on similar bonds sold and the direction the bond market is heading (a rally or a selloff), so a bond with a 2% coupon as an example selling into a 2.5% market would absolutely sell at a discount to par.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Yield is typically only realized if the bond is held to maturity and then redeemed by the Treasury (there are various yield calculations, of course; Running Yield, Nominal Yield, Yield to Maturity (YTM), Tax-Equivalent Yield (TEY), Yield to Call (YTC), Yield to Worst (YTW) etc.) . If you buy a 2% coupon at a discount on Jan 1, hold it until you receive one of the bi-annual interest payments and then sell, the yield quoted on the day of purchase will not necessarily be what you actually realize on the day you sell.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As I understand it, here's a very simplistic explanation of what happened with Silicon Valley Bank. [View all]
LuckyCharms
Mar 2023
OP
I choose to focus on the entire collection of legislators who passed this law
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 2023
#12
Lemme guess: Banks must have paid high-priced LOBBYISTS to promise campaign donations
Justice matters.
Mar 2023
#16
You can assume my contempt for the anti-worker, fascist republicans as a given.
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 2023
#46
I don't know about the FED, but I think Thiel would definitely try to harm Biden politically.
Lonestarblue
Mar 2023
#9
Yep...you got it...when Fed began to raise rates...the bank got squeezed as the bonds lost market values...
ashredux
Mar 2023
#6
+1, but the bank ... KNEW ... the feds were going to increase rates and held that dumb position
uponit7771
Mar 2023
#52
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
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
This point, not enough data to make that determination. But crypto might be in the mix.
ashredux
Mar 2023
#38
Disagree, SVB should've known their bonds were going to lose at minimum short term value and ...
uponit7771
Mar 2023
#54
Well, I recall 2008, and some awfully big, big boys failed.... You had to keep certain regulations in
ashredux
Mar 2023
#39
YEP!! "SBV over-weighted the amount of depositor's funds that were used to buy [FED BONDs]"
uponit7771
Mar 2023
#51
I am wondering if they were also involved in the Bitcoin debacle.....
William Gustafson
Mar 2023
#65