Live data from Hacker News

SVB Hall of Shame

svbhallofshame.wordpress.com

111–120 of 307 posts

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#111
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

Fixed terms of 5 years would be a very hard change to swallow in the US.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#113
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

they don't rely on investing cash deposits on long-term illiquid instruments

Where do the banks get the money for the mortgages from those from? Is a central bank giving them loans for to cover the mortgage outlay? Because if they're financing them with customer deposits (which is the way every bank I know in the US works) those mortgages are long-term illiquid instruments.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#114
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

What took down SVB was mortgage securities. In the USA mortgages are typically 30 years long, with a fixed rate the entire time. Actual average duration is only a few years in a declining rate environment and 5-6 years in flat rate environment. In a raising rate environment, which we haven’t really seen for any length of time in most people adult lifetimes, it’s probably 10-15 years. This transition is what harmed SVB and it’s hurt all the banks but most didn’t leverage up so much on them and didn’t have only large, flighty customers. Very unique situation. There are also lots of ways big banks can protect themselves from this duration risk, if they actually care.

It sounds like in Australia (and Canada and the UK) the risk has just been shifted from the professionals to the consumers, with only five year mortgages. You can’t pay off your entire house in five years, so many people are dependent on being able to refinance, and are going to be in a lot of hurt over the next few years as the mortgages come due. This does not sound like a better solution.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#115
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people in the VC community who triggered the bank run did the right thing by their startups. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Without a run on the bank none of this would have happened.

Once the run started then VCs who had not previously had a negative stance on SVB may have done right by their startups, but yeah not the ones who actually started it in the first place.

This seems like distinguishing between the snowflake that falls on a sheet of snow and starts an avalanche, and the snow that collects along the way. Both were necessary conditions for the avalanche, but is either more to blame? It's an imperfect analogy but my point is this: the problem is all the loose snow sitting on a slope in the first place.

Unless those first people were actively trying to create an insolvency crisis, it seems to me they were either being prudent or prescient. There's a reason it's called the "tragedy" of the commons, and not the "tyranny" of the commons.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#116
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

That is not what banks do, its the modern banking system. That's what bitcoin was all about..

Bitcoin isn't solvent either, good luck getting your money out in case there is a bank run there.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#117
post #107
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

Ok, I'm starting a new bank and everyone will be able to withdraw all at once, bank runs will be a thing of the past, your interest rate will be 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000125%

Sounds fine by me. I get better returns investing in index funds anyway, my bank account is literally just somewhere to park my liquid money and direct my paycheck to because stuffing it under my mattress would be too unsafe.

Banks should differentiate between accounts where you're safely parking your money, and accounts that are actually low risk investments. And they ideally would offer both of those things. I see no downsides here.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#118
Isn't this one of the stable Nash equilibriums in game theory. You keep X of your X money if you withdraw, with a chance that someone else will lose their money OR you keep your faith in the system with a chance that you lose 100% of X.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#119
post #91

Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank. Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little i…

Yes, this is quite naive
Post reply on HN