Surprised Goldmans didn't buy them - and position it as Marcus for Startups.
Aren’t Goldman thinking about winding down / selling off their retail stuff?
Does that include the Apple Card?
HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
141–150 of 156 posts
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#142They bought it for £1 and will make a billion from it. What a stupid deal
That’s what I don’t get. Sounds like there is a billion or two of free money in there. How did they buy it for ONE pound?
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#143Related, Hindenburg got trolled in India for not spotting this earlier on.
https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news/hindenburg-trolled-for...
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#144Thank god we've got a PM who's a grown up again.
Supporting his father in law comes first.
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we? His style is more school-boy debate club than anything else. It doesn't matter what the reality is, so long as you get some zingers in.
It is really sad to see comment threads like this that devolve into shallow and petty dismissals devoid of any actual content or substance!
I've seen him a few times on PMQs and I thought this comment was a reasonable description
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#146Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any bank will hit liquidity issues on a full-on bank run, as not 100% of a banks assets will be marketable, but central banks will provide emergency liquidity in these situations That was not the case in the US for banks with HTM assets until the backstop program announced by the Fed in the wake of the SVB collapse. > But banks should not hit insolvency issues like SVB did SVB’s liquidity issues turned into solvenc…
Treasuries are some of the most liquid instruments available, it is not a “liquidity” issue like “How do I line up buyers for all these weird, hard-to-price assets”. And the measure put in place by the Fed is not a liquidity back stop, it is a value/solvency bailout, or kind of capital infusion. This is what SVB was trying to do on Wednesday, raise capital. That should tell you it is not a liquidity problem.
I think you may be confusing FDIC actions.
One of the actions was a program to loan against the full value of long term assets at term price instead of current market value.
Maybe we are just quibbling over the definition of liquidity. long term treasuries and MBS can be easily sold, but you may take a substantial loss in doing so instead of holding to maturity.
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's said that no bank (even the best-managed) can withstand a fullscale bank run I keep reading this but this should not be true Any bank will hit liquidity issues on a full-on bank run, as not 100% of a banks assets will be marketable, but central banks will provide emergency liquidity in these situations But banks should not hit insolvency issues like SVB did
There's a certain amount of risk with all lending and investment that banks do with deposit funds. This can be home loans, government bonds, and other relatively safe products. I don't think it should be up to the government to back these risks, because if banks think the government will always rescue them, they don't need to care as much about risky investments. You could argue that it is depositor money, so they're…
> I don't think it should be up to the government to back these risks, because if banks think the government will always rescue them, they don't need to care as much about risky investments.
Counterpoint - if depositors had known that the bank could not lose their money, because the government will back it, there would be no run on the bank. Why bother? It's _safe_ by design. I do agree with the general point, and there are huge questions around capitalisation and marking with long term debt etc.
What's most interesting here to me is the inaction within SVB when they could have been fixing these problems for survivable losses early, but instead tried to ride the storm.
I'd love to read some of those meeting minutes...
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Treasuries are some of the most liquid instruments available, it is not a “liquidity” issue like “How do I line up buyers for all these weird, hard-to-price assets”. And the measure put in place by the Fed is not a liquidity back stop, it is a value/solvency bailout, or kind of capital infusion. This is what SVB was trying to do on Wednesday, raise capital. That should tell you it is not a liquidity problem.
I think you may be confusing FDIC actions. One of the actions was a program to loan against the full value of long term assets at term price instead of current market value. Maybe we are just quibbling over the definition of liquidity. long term treasuries and MBS can be easily sold, but you may take a substantial loss in doing so instead of holding to maturity.
Not confusing the two, and maybe it is quibbling but changes in market value have nothing to do with liquidity as that term is used in finance.
Just because you can't sell a bond at par doesn't mean it is an illiquid market.
Re: HSBC to Buy UK Arm of Silicon Valley Bank
#150[dead]