I just tried to login to svb.connect.com and it is giving me a popup to scan an QR code from the app. The app now gives me a popup requiring two factor auth (which it hadn’t ever before) with a phone number that I don’t have access to. I luckily don’t have much money in this account. As a bootstrapped founder, what would I need to do to get my money if SVB goes under?
Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
41–50 of 889 posts
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#42Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
While that would obviously solve the (relatively minor, all things considered) problem of bank runs, the demand for long term loans is not nearly as large as the supply of long term money. Maturity transformation provides real value to the economy by consolidating short term deposits into things like mortgages and long term business loans.
Imagine if you could only get 3-year mortgages, after which the entire cost of the house had to be repaid. That would make home ownership unattainable for the vast majority of the population. Alternatively, if you could not access your savings for 10-30 years after depositing I bet a lot of people would not bother at all.
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#43Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
Does that provide a better outcome for society than something like FDIC deposit insurance and the occasional run? Seems like for the vast majority of people it does not. Most banks make enough money to pay their FDIC premiums and some interest on demand accounts and profit for their shareholders, and the few that don't are covered by insurance. That seems way better than having to pay a monthly fee to keep my money s…
Yes, it does.
Lying is wrong[1]. Therefore, it is bad to base your banking system on it. It's the typical thing where the costs to the system accrete over time and then cause a crisis: the elites are bailed out, the taxpayers eat it.
There wouldn't need to be a reserve ratio. A dollar could, in theory, be lent out an infinite number of times, so long as that dollar were lent (and saved) at increasingly shorter durations. At any given point of time, a single person "owns" that dollar. Of course, the market would signal what dollars were available when. And, also, loan losses would need to be covered out of other profits by banks (who would need to charge service fees for, well, the services they provide, rather than hiding behind long/short duration arbitrage)
(I'm also in favor of a citizens dividend for controlling money growth, and a modern debt jubilee per Steve Keen. So, yes, you can safely ignore anything I say as implausible, almost certainly wrong, and unlikely to ever be realistically considered by the powers that be. This has one advantage, however: I will never be proven wrong :)
[1] - see all moral traditions across all cultures, or ask mom
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#44First silvergate, now SVB. Is this going to be a wave across the banks?
Anyone holding long term bonds they bought before the fed raised rates is in liquidity trouble. The question is if those institutions will have a run or not.
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm overly skeptical, but everyone should know that all banks have the risk of 'if everyone takes their money out, the bank won't be able to make it work', right?
If the Bank is federally insured, it's not a problem that the bank won't be able to make it work. That's why generally speaking bank runs only happen on uninsured banks in the US. SVB is not, as far as I can see, insured and should definitely be careful in their choice of words.
That’s true however there is a limit.
> The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category. [1]
1: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/brochures/d...
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#46Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
> If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying Are fixed deposits not common in the US?
There is a product called a Certificate of Deposit[1], but I don’t hear much about them. They seem like quite a bit of hassle for not much more interest.
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#47Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
If you loan out deposits you are already set for a bank run. All it takes is the depositors to ask for their money back. One deposit. One loan. One withdrawal request.
Not if the deposit and loan are duration matched.
"I want my money back."
"Sure, you can have it in two years."
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#48Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
> reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long
What is the business then? In order for it to be a business, a bank needs to earn a higher interest rate on what they lend than on what they borrow.
The bank has two choices to achieve this delta in interest rates. It can either 1. mismatch duration or 2. make loans that are riskier than their borrowings. By banning the first, you are implicitly claiming that the second is preferable. Is the second really preferable? Maybe. But not obviously.
I have no special sympathies for Silicon Valley Bank, but the reason its customers still have deposits today is that the bank leaned more toward the duration mismatch than the risk mismatch. What happens if you achieve your interest rate delta by making super risky loans and all those loans turn to goose eggs? Bye bye customer deposits.
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
FDIC only insures up to $250K
Per account. Edit: It seems I am incorrect. > The standard deposit insurance coverage limit is $250,000 per depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category. Deposits held in different ownership categories are separately insured, up to at least $250,000, even if held at the same bank.
> Per account.
Per account "type" and structure. For DDAs if you are married it will be:
You: $250k
Your+your wife: $250k
You POD your wife : $250k
Your wife: $250k
Your wife POD you: $250k
Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank
#50Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…
> Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long.
If we really want to prevent bank runs, shouldn't we just forbid lending?
Snark aside, transforming duration is a big part of the value that banks add. In general, there's a lot of demand for lending short and borrowing long. Banks add value (and risk) by taking the opposite side of those trades. I'd rather have banks that suffer occasional runs (which really aren't that common at this point) than banks that don't transform duration