Live data from Hacker News

Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

home.treasury.gov

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#351

So they made their decision, everyone can move on. I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty. The idea of some noble class of investors championing disruption is dead. They're just a bunch of rent seekers like everybody else. For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke. It's great at a personal level that "foun…

What did VCs do wrong here? They warned of impending solvency problems at SVB and told founders to withdraw their money ASAP. And indeed, the bank failed the next day. The companies in trouble are those who didn't listen to the VCs.

Basically lobbying the government for a bailout so that their startup investments don't go to zero.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#352
Taking a bit of a longer term view into why this happens, I feel the Fed (and Treasury/FDIC/OCC) needs to do quite a bit of soul searching:

1) After the crisis the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) regulation required banks to hold a lot of "high-quality-liquid-assets" (HQLA) for every dollar of deposits they have. Kinda like reserve requirements...

2) HQLAs include liquid assets (cash, Fed reserves) plus treasuries and agency bonds. Well cash pays zero so of course banks will be investing in the juicier long dated assets. This is the first mistake by the Fed (and Basel) who took the approach "treasuries have absolutely no risk" which ignores interest rate risk.

For instance; say you bought a ten-year zero-coupon treasury when rates were 1; that's valued at 1/1.01^10 = 90.5 cents on the dollar. But if rates are now 5% that's worth only 61.3 cents of the dollar (!) but you are allowed to ignore this loss...

3) The way we allowed banks to hide these losses in the now popular Held-to-Maturity (HTM) category instead of Available-For-Sale (AFS). Any security put there can be valued for capital regulation purposes at the amount you paid for it, instead of it's actual value (i.e. market value). So in other words, we first incentivized banks to invest in these risky securities and then provided a way to hide the risks from capital regulations.

4) To make it worse, if you as a bank realize that "oh shit I have too much of this crap" there's another regulation disincentivizing you from fixing things. If you even sell $1 of the HTM bucket then ALL the assets of that class move into AFS and you are forced to realize all the losses. So you will only sell HTM at the very end, as SVB did.

5) Lastly, the govt flooded the markets with cash over the last years (zero interest rates) so everyone (firms, households) had lots of deposit. Lending opportunities were much lower than deposits so they had to put the money into these securities.

6) But central banks did QE, which drove the price of these assets very high (and thus the yield very low). For instance, SVB had agency bonds with 1.5% yields. So, to recap, banks were incentivized strongly to buy these securities which the govt made sure had terrible yields.

7) Then, once COVID ended and inflation started it was time to do quantitative tightening (QT) where the govt became a net seller of these securities, driving their price to the ground, creating huge losses for banks.

And that's where we are now. Most banks have HUGE HTM positions of mostly long-dated bonds, with huge losses, not because they are all idiots, but b/c that's how the incentives were aligned. And now we are paying its cost, including the cost of QE/QT.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#353
post #297
post #238

A lot of people are asking “how is this not a bailout?” right now. I would caution against dismissing them, it’s a legitimate question. Pointing to the “Taxpayers will not pick up the bill” line counts as dismissive: this is a press release, and it’s from the government, that’s two strong reasons for some skepticism. So, in earnest, how is it not a bailout? Feel free to offer your answer! Mine is: “Banks are required…

> the FDIC expects to recover 99% of the money Where do you see the 99%? My understanding is the bulk of their assets (long-term bonds) dropped 30% in value. If these bonds are sold on the market, they wont have 99% of the money. Maybe the treasury is giving them the money back of the bond?

I'm guessing the FDIC can just hold them to maturity. The FDIC also has immediate access to a $100 billion loan from the treasury via statute if they needed cash.

Over the lifetime of the bonds/loans, they might even make money like what happened in the TARP program.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#354
post #211

Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…

> changing the rules in the middle of the game. That's literally how legal systems work.

not credible ones. google "ex post facto law" if you are confused about this.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#355
post #99

So much for moral hazard. Capitalism is supposed to be about profit and loss, you bail out the losers, there is no end to the loss. I guess we still haven't learned the lessons from 2008. Effective regulation should have been put in place to oversee that banks are effectively managing their risks. Not bailing out companies whenever times get tough.

> you bail out the losers, there is no end to the loss The difference here is that the "losers" made was supposed to be an incredibly safe bet. The people who made the actual bad bets are all losing their jobs. Shareholders are getting nothing (ish). It's the customer who's getting protected, here. > I guess we still haven't learned the lessons from 2008 Not my observation, but it's more like we were fighting the las…

> The difference here is that the "losers" made was supposed to be an incredibly safe bet.

It's not a bet if it's impossible to lose.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#356
post #224

So they made their decision, everyone can move on. I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty. The idea of some noble class of investors championing disruption is dead. They're just a bunch of rent seekers like everybody else. For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke. It's great at a personal level that "foun…

The thing I'm most confused about in this comment is that you ever believed that VC's and startups were some kind of noble class.

That's how VCs and certain founders have been portrayed by mass media and even on HN for many years.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#357
"RE: student debt forgiveness, I think folks shouldn’t get a bailout (banks, airlines or students), as bailouts remove accountability for actions"

~Jason Calacanis, Twitter, Jul 27, 2019

link to Tweet: https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1155224393028476933

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#358
post #238

A lot of people are asking “how is this not a bailout?” right now. I would caution against dismissing them, it’s a legitimate question. Pointing to the “Taxpayers will not pick up the bill” line counts as dismissive: this is a press release, and it’s from the government, that’s two strong reasons for some skepticism. So, in earnest, how is it not a bailout? Feel free to offer your answer! Mine is: “Banks are required…

> If there’s a shortfall they will charge the banks a little extra in their next insurance payment, but keep in mind we’re talking about at most a few billion dollars spread over every bank; they are unlikely to pass on a small cost like that, but even if they do pass on the cost to the taxpayer it will be something like $10 per person maximum. Sounds like a bailout at the taxpayers' expense, just with extra steps. A…

Money is fungible. You could take any amount of money from banks and argue that they’ll pass on the costs to customers.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#359

Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…

>At the same time, this is yet another example of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy. No, there are systemic risk exceptions within the rules. If a bank is large enough, then the systemic risk to the economy as a whole is large enough to warrant this step. "Too big to fail" is…

> I hope it is clear to all of us that avoiding the economic disruption of a cascade of bank failures is in our interest.

Very clearly there is a large chuck of this forum that doesn't understand that.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#360

So they made their decision, everyone can move on. I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty. The idea of some noble class of investors championing disruption is dead. They're just a bunch of rent seekers like everybody else. For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke. It's great at a personal level that "foun…

> prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty A ton of the prominent VCs were writing out checks from their personal bank accounts so that founders could meet payroll. > For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke Wait seriously? You somehow lost more faith from this than you did from - crypto - Adam Neumann - $100m seed rounds and like 30 oth…

> A ton of the prominent VCs were writing out checks from their personal bank accounts

Is this true? I've been following this story pretty closely and haven't heard anything about that.

Post reply on HN