Live data from Hacker News

FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

fdic.gov

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#551
post #375
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These statements seem pretty contradictory: - "it had reserves in excess of its liabilities" - "They can't unwind that position and cover all possible demands" I'm guessing that you're thinking of some sort of valuation of their assets that says something like "well they're really worth more than they're currently valued at", which is a common claim on this story but it's a pretty bold one?

They're just saying that many of the assets are insufficiently liquid to be instantly sold off to cover all the withdrawals during a bank run.

I don't think anyone is saying this? The decrease in value is due to wrong-way interest rate exposure, not due to a fire sale

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#552

An explainer post [1] connected to that Tweet is something I found extremely informative (assuming it's accurate): "- In 2021 SVB saw a mass influx in deposits, which jumped from $61.76bn at the end of 2019 to $189.20bn at the end of 2021. - As deposits grew, SVB could not grow their loan book fast enough to generate the yield they wanted to see on this capital. As a result, they purchased a large amount (over $80bn!…

Investing in the exact same kind of unsafe assets that brought the 2007 crisis, as well as assets that cause house prices to stay unaffordably high.

Yep, all of SV is truly made of bumbling idiots. That whole solution is truly hilarious and watching all these clowns lose their money is going to be fun.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#553
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some family who (with some other partners) founded a small community bank that has grown over the years. They expanded in some areas by buying other small community banks, specifically in areas where there was a big increase in income in the local area (from mineral rights, etc). The smaller banks that they bought were in a situation where suddenly they had large amounts of cash incoming, and customers who wer…

Why is "too much money" a thing? If a bank only wants $100 million in deposits, but customers deposit $150 million, why can't the bank set the extra $50 million to the side and pretend like it doesn't exist until customers want to withdraw it?

I believe it's because depositors want a return on their "investment"

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#554
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some family who (with some other partners) founded a small community bank that has grown over the years. They expanded in some areas by buying other small community banks, specifically in areas where there was a big increase in income in the local area (from mineral rights, etc). The smaller banks that they bought were in a situation where suddenly they had large amounts of cash incoming, and customers who wer…

At first glance, bank balance sheets are unintuitive and feel 'the wrong way round'. When someone deposits $1m at a bank, the bank doesn't have $1m more assets, it has $1m more liabilities. (Yes, this is a gross over-simplification)

One way to control it is by lowering interests on accounts to make it less attractive deposit money

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#555

I think I'm going to start asking potential employers where they do their banking.

I don't think it should be like this, but most surely your profile will be flagged as "suspicious" if you ask such questions.

I'm fairly certain that would be A-okay with the person you responded to.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#556
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some family who (with some other partners) founded a small community bank that has grown over the years. They expanded in some areas by buying other small community banks, specifically in areas where there was a big increase in income in the local area (from mineral rights, etc). The smaller banks that they bought were in a situation where suddenly they had large amounts of cash incoming, and customers who wer…

Why is "too much money" a thing? If a bank only wants $100 million in deposits, but customers deposit $150 million, why can't the bank set the extra $50 million to the side and pretend like it doesn't exist until customers want to withdraw it?

The customers who deposited $150 million expect some rate of return on their deposits - in fact, you promised it to them. In a year that $150 million needs to turn into $155 million or whatever.

So you need to lend it out, and charge interest, and use that interest income on your loans to pay the interest on your deposits.

Sounds like SVB made a lot of loans or investment purchases quickly, and then some of those went bad.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#557

Probably safe to say: Stripe isn't going to be able to raise a couple bil to pay tax liabilities in this environment.

I'm having a feeling that Stripe is totally fucked and tangled in this situation.

From Atlas, employee stock option taxes and it's IPO fundraising might be all on the line.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#558
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some family who (with some other partners) founded a small community bank that has grown over the years. They expanded in some areas by buying other small community banks, specifically in areas where there was a big increase in income in the local area (from mineral rights, etc). The smaller banks that they bought were in a situation where suddenly they had large amounts of cash incoming, and customers who wer…

Why is "too much money" a thing? If a bank only wants $100 million in deposits, but customers deposit $150 million, why can't the bank set the extra $50 million to the side and pretend like it doesn't exist until customers want to withdraw it?

Because now the bank has to pay interest to depositors of $150M instead of $100M, which means that they'll pay a lower, less competitive rate. So, in order to keep customers, banks are incentivized to lend out any and all spare cash for whatever yield that they can get, in order to give attractive rates to depositors. Losing customers though shouldn't really be a problem for the bank, after all, those customers did deposit "too much" money - once enough have left to seek higher yields elsewhere, there will be less cash on the sidelines, and so higher yields for the remaining customers. I suppose if your whole philosophy is "growth at any cost", and you're measuring growth not just by AUM but also by number of customers, you get excess risk taking and yield chasing.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#559
post #445

An explainer post [1] connected to that Tweet is something I found extremely informative (assuming it's accurate): "- In 2021 SVB saw a mass influx in deposits, which jumped from $61.76bn at the end of 2019 to $189.20bn at the end of 2021. - As deposits grew, SVB could not grow their loan book fast enough to generate the yield they wanted to see on this capital. As a result, they purchased a large amount (over $80bn!…

"97% of these MBS were 10+ year duration, with a weighted average yield of 1.56%." I'd like to learn more about the dramatic drop in MBS - elsewhere, downthread, it is asserted that they have dropped 30-50% ? I understand the inverse relationship between bond price and yield ... ... but I am surprised that an asset yielding ~1.5% drops 30% in value when treasuries of similar duration rise to 3-4%. Are there other fac…

Go watch Margin Call.

Re: FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank

#560
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some family who (with some other partners) founded a small community bank that has grown over the years. They expanded in some areas by buying other small community banks, specifically in areas where there was a big increase in income in the local area (from mineral rights, etc). The smaller banks that they bought were in a situation where suddenly they had large amounts of cash incoming, and customers who wer…

At first glance, bank balance sheets are unintuitive and feel 'the wrong way round'. When someone deposits $1m at a bank, the bank doesn't have $1m more assets, it has $1m more liabilities. (Yes, this is a gross over-simplification)

They have both $1m more assets and $1m liabilities.

But that does not reflect risk.

For instance, now they take those $1m in cash and use them to make risky loans or investments. At face value the balance sheet is the same because they still have $1m in asset... except that the risk that this asset turns into eff all has significantly increased.

Post reply on HN