Live data from Hacker News

Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

techcrunch.com

751–760 of 889 posts

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#751

Just to be clear for everyone: banks don't keep 100% deposits in a big vault, where a full-customer-withdrawal can and should be expected and permitted. Banks even at their simplest "Main Street local level", need to keep, say, 15% or 20% of their deposited funds available, as determined centrally e.g. the Fed or the Bank of England. The rest by design is to be lent out, that's how banks offer loans, mortgages etc. S…

> The rest by design is to be lent out, that's how banks offer loans, mortgages etc. When banks lend out money, they don't lend out existing deposits, they create new (debt-based) money from nothing and this new money is fractionally backed by deposits. With 10% fractional reserves, if they have $100 in deposits, they can lend out $1000, thereby creating $900 of new money from nothing.

The second sentence is a bit misleading. Reserves are not a prerequisite for lending in our monetary system. The bank gives out all the loans that it deems profitable and only has to ensure after the fact that its balance with the central bank is sufficient (in your example, if it had loaned out 1700$, it would need to increase the balance by 70$, e.g. by taking out a loan with the central bank).

edit: Here is a great explanation: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

Quote: "Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach. In that view, central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a much greater change in bank loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves. While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality."

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#752
post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should have explained it to him … as if he were a small child … or a golden retriever…

You could have been digging ditches all these years Sam!

Did you know I built a bridge once?

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#753
post #609

From https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/09/silicon-valley-banks-share... : Becker said the bank has “ample liquidity” to support its clients “with one exception: If everybody is telling each other that SVB is in trouble, that will be a challenge.” Pro tip: if you're CEO of a bank that's facing a bank run, don't tell the press that you'll be in trouble if everybody takes their money out.

To be fair, he is dealing with a slightly more sophisticated clientele than the masses that typically make a run on a bank who would (hopefully) realize that their shared success is contingent upon rational, pareto-optimal behavior; which is to say — if folks make a run on SV Bank, it’s pretty much going to be a shit show as to who comes out on top/who doesn’t.

I agree and said something similar elsewhere but i think whats becoming clear is that a bunch of VCs are so selfish (and clearly not that thoughtful) that this behavior might undermine the collective of the bank.

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really amazing that both Thatcher and Reagan came to power at around the same time, delivered such fabulous witticisms, and caused very similar societal harm.

UK before Tatcher was a depressed society with stagflation, rising crimes, crumbling infrastructure; that couldn't even clean its own streets. It was a society completely hamstrung by old unions that would happily collapse the economy in face of global competition, as long as their jobs gave the same pay - nominally. Thatcher won two landslide re-elections for a reason.

> UK before Tatcher was a depressed society with stagflation

Hardly a problem local to Britain, and hardly something Thatcher solved. It was a crisis that also passed in countries that did not elect viciously anti-state, anti-working class governments.

> crumbling infrastructure; that couldn't even clean its own streets

Bit of an exaggeration, and I'm not sure how Maggie "Minimal State" Thatcher has supposedly helped with that.

> Thatcher won two landslide re-elections for a reason

If it weren't for the Falklands she would have been a one term president.

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#755
post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Savings don't grow, not in real terms and on a societal scale. A miniscule fraction of real goods and services in the economy can get buried in the basement and saved for thirty years.

my cousin's grandfather is 101 and lives in the house he lived his childhood in; i think he was born there. he and his parents have expanded the house significantly since then, as well as, of course, repairing and maintaining it. it's very comfortable now. a society that builds durable housing stock is saving up the goods and services that went into its construction one of the things in the house is a nearly complete…

Nice stories, and I don't doubt that some money can be productively invested. But does the marginal dollar saved wind up in a productive investment, or does it wind up malinvested? In other words, is money the bottleneck for increasing productivity, or is it figuring out improved processes and predicting the future economic landscape?

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the immortal words of Andrew Lahde who closed his hedge fund up 800% in 2008, “I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothe…

The secret part is: they (yale guys) still bag big money regardless.

I'd say rather they don't miss losing a big bag or two so much as others do...

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#758
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Levine is fond of this highly relevant quote by Bagehot: “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” It seems that CEOs of banks haven't learned anything since 1873 when this was observed.

What is there to learn? That's not an actionable statement. A bank can follow a lower risk strategy and accept lower profits, but that's not necessarily what shareholders want. Some risk of failure is acceptable.

Especially if that risk is borne by the taxpayers

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#759
post #609

From https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/09/silicon-valley-banks-share... : Becker said the bank has “ample liquidity” to support its clients “with one exception: If everybody is telling each other that SVB is in trouble, that will be a challenge.” Pro tip: if you're CEO of a bank that's facing a bank run, don't tell the press that you'll be in trouble if everybody takes their money out.

To be fair, he is dealing with a slightly more sophisticated clientele than the masses that typically make a run on a bank who would (hopefully) realize that their shared success is contingent upon rational, pareto-optimal behavior; which is to say — if folks make a run on SV Bank, it’s pretty much going to be a shit show as to who comes out on top/who doesn’t.

Why would the clientele be slightly more sophisticated?

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#760
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So did Louisiana banks issue loans?

How could they issue loans? 10 x 10$ deposits means you can loan 100$? Where as the modern way is more like 100$ in deposits means you can lend out 1000$ because chances are everyone won’t not pay it back? And then can’t you say that since you’ve lent out 1000$ and chances are you’ll get paid back, you’ve basically got 1104.56$ and so can lend out 10k$? And then you bundle those together and sell them to each other d…

> Where as the modern way is more like 100$ in deposits means you can lend out 1000$

More like 20,000$, but yes.

Post reply on HN