Silicon Valley Bank: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{a|disaster|}}So much ink has been spilled you don’t — yet — need more of it from the JC, except to mention how nice it is that, suddenly , every bot account on Twitt..."
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|disaster|}}So much ink has been spilled you don’t — yet — need more of it from the JC, except to mention how nice it is that, suddenly , every bot account on [[Twitter]] has an opinion, suddenly, about [[duration mismatch]] and moral hazard.
{{a|disaster|{{disaster roll|SVB memeplex}}}}
So much ink has been spilled you don’t — yet — need more of it from the JC, except to mention how nice it is that, suddenly, every bot account on [[Twitter]] has an opinion, suddenly, about [[duration mismatch]] and moral hazard.


==Was it a bailout?==
==Was it a bailout?==
Seeing as the depositors were paid out by bailed-in bank debt holders and shareholders, and a FDIC call on its levy fund. So, no, we don’t think so. This might cause the investing community to reappraise the credit standing of bank term debt — make it more expensive, since it is effectively subordinated to deposits — but that is probably the truth of the matter anyway. It might also encourage banks to shift their weighting between term debt and deposits ''towards'' deposits, as they’ll be cheaper.
Seeing as the depositors were paid out by bailed-in bank debt holders and shareholders, and a FDIC call on its levy fund.  
 
So, no, we don’t think this was really a bail-out, in the sense that fat-cat bankers are once again exercising their [[Rubin trade]]<nowiki/>s and walking away with all the money. This time, they are not. Three classes of banker have been penalised: (a) term debt lenders, since they are bailing in the depositors; (b) Silicon Valley Bank and its shareholders, since they have all gone [[titten hoch]], and (c) the wider banking community, who contribute to the FDIC insurance fund and who might, if it runs out, be shipping a mean old levy that will make them weep and moan. The people who do okay out of this are the depositors — yes, yes, they are horrid techbros, see below — but in the great lore of bank capital structure they are still retail depositors, and entitled to be treated like they are [[Little old ladies|little old ladies of the law]].
 
This might cause the investing community to reappraise the credit standing of bank term debt — make it more expensive, since it is effectively subordinated to deposits — but that is probably the truth of the matter anyway. It might also encourage banks to shift their weighting between term debt and deposits ''towards'' deposits, as they’ll be cheaper.
==Those depositors==
==Those depositors==
Yes they are all Silicon Valley techbros and VCs and no we shouldn’t feel sorry for them, and it is okay to (privately) revel in the hubris of their distress. Also, you may well ask, fairly, what the ''hell'' they were doing leaving hundreds of millions on deposit with a bank and not sticking it into money market funds or some such thing (and indeed why SVB wasn’t encouraging them to do this given it was transparently deposit funding the bank did not need).
Yes, the depositors were all techbros and VCs; no, we shouldn’t feel sorry for them; yes, and it is okay (privately) to exalt in their distress at being so stupid. For, you may well ask, fairly, what the ''hell'' any company thinks it is doing leaving hundreds of millions on call deposit, and not sticking it into an instrument with a better yield.
 
Most banks will gladly sweep excess credit balances into money market funds or some such thing overnight (indeed you might ask why SVB wasn’t encouraging the depositors to do this given it was transparently shipping deposit funding it did not want or need).
===Concentration of, and correlation between, depositors is a significant risk===
===Concentration of, and correlation between, depositors is a significant risk===
You get the sense that no-one really thought about depositor correlation as a risk before. Who knew retail punters talked to each other? But this is now a real risk, and this is not the first time we have seen it rear its ugly head: the [[GameStop]] fiasco was exactly the same: the dumb, passive bovines in cattle class suddenly got together on Reddit to stick it to the man. It is like a millennial version of ''Animal Farm''.
===Deposits really are flakey===
===Deposits really are flakey===
Since they can be removed at once, deposits are a ''really'' flakey balance sheet liability.  
Since they can be removed at once, deposits are a ''really'' flakey balance sheet liability.  
Line 14: Line 23:


Making deposits effectively super-senior — giving them priority over term debt — helps generate that sense of confidence.
Making deposits effectively super-senior — giving them priority over term debt — helps generate that sense of confidence.
Insurance

Latest revision as of 12:30, 17 March 2023

Chez Guevara — Dining in style at the Disaster Café™

Extract from the JC’s financial disasters roll of honour
Scandal Date Where Loss Reason Firings Jail-Time?
Silicon Valley Bank memeplex 2023 US $80bn or more Dopey bank management, regulator asleep at switch, Peter Thiel panicking Bank insolvent. Bondholders and shareholders wiped out. Other banks levied. Triggered other moral panics such as First National, Signature bank and others (poor old lucky Credit Suisse) None yet. Lots of arguments about the presence or absence of moral hazard. Moral panic more like.

memeplex&action=edit edit template

Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


So much ink has been spilled you don’t — yet — need more of it from the JC, except to mention how nice it is that, suddenly, every bot account on Twitter has an opinion, suddenly, about duration mismatch and moral hazard.

Was it a bailout?

Seeing as the depositors were paid out by bailed-in bank debt holders and shareholders, and a FDIC call on its levy fund.

So, no, we don’t think this was really a bail-out, in the sense that fat-cat bankers are once again exercising their Rubin trades and walking away with all the money. This time, they are not. Three classes of banker have been penalised: (a) term debt lenders, since they are bailing in the depositors; (b) Silicon Valley Bank and its shareholders, since they have all gone titten hoch, and (c) the wider banking community, who contribute to the FDIC insurance fund and who might, if it runs out, be shipping a mean old levy that will make them weep and moan. The people who do okay out of this are the depositors — yes, yes, they are horrid techbros, see below — but in the great lore of bank capital structure they are still retail depositors, and entitled to be treated like they are little old ladies of the law.

This might cause the investing community to reappraise the credit standing of bank term debt — make it more expensive, since it is effectively subordinated to deposits — but that is probably the truth of the matter anyway. It might also encourage banks to shift their weighting between term debt and deposits towards deposits, as they’ll be cheaper.

Those depositors

Yes, the depositors were all techbros and VCs; no, we shouldn’t feel sorry for them; yes, and it is okay (privately) to exalt in their distress at being so stupid. For, you may well ask, fairly, what the hell any company thinks it is doing leaving hundreds of millions on call deposit, and not sticking it into an instrument with a better yield.

Most banks will gladly sweep excess credit balances into money market funds or some such thing overnight (indeed you might ask why SVB wasn’t encouraging the depositors to do this given it was transparently shipping deposit funding it did not want or need).

Concentration of, and correlation between, depositors is a significant risk

You get the sense that no-one really thought about depositor correlation as a risk before. Who knew retail punters talked to each other? But this is now a real risk, and this is not the first time we have seen it rear its ugly head: the GameStop fiasco was exactly the same: the dumb, passive bovines in cattle class suddenly got together on Reddit to stick it to the man. It is like a millennial version of Animal Farm.

Deposits really are flakey

Since they can be removed at once, deposits are a really flakey balance sheet liability.

No bank can survive a bank run. For all Larry Summers’ declarations to the contrary, duration mismatch is a systemic problem for all banks, and one of their core jobs should be to properly manage it.

Bank runs are triggered by liquidity (if you have enough liquidity you can meet all withdrawal requests, so no problem) but once triggered, depend on confidence. If you are having a liquidity “moment”, you need to be able to impart confidence to depositors that, liquidity notwithstanding, their deposits are fundamentally safe. Even if not now, they will eventually get all their money back. If they believe that, then no bank run.

Making deposits effectively super-senior — giving them priority over term debt — helps generate that sense of confidence.

Insurance