Live data from Hacker News

How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

finance.yahoo.com

91–100 of 325 posts

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#91
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the ordinary way FDIC resolves a situation like this is that they simply have the failing bank acquired by a peer bank (a bank of generally the same size and structure), which then takes over the depositor obligations. So it's not as if the ordinary course is that uninsured deposits get zeroed out; it's just that the mechanism FDIC is using is novel and abrupt.

I wonder why that didn't happen in this case? Perhaps fear that would just trigger a run on the acquiring bank?

The situation unfolded over a weekend, after SVB shut down Friday afternoon. The FDIC attempted to find a buyer on Saturday, and got at least one interested party, but couldn't close a deal. The Administration was getting anxious over the possible fallout: tech companies not meeting payroll, possible banking contagion, who knows what else? Then Powell/Fed proposed some novel mechanisms for temporary rescue. [1]

They worked together to put out a joint press release, and Biden gave a down-to-earth, rough-and-tumble speech about protecting depositors and kicking the failed executives and bad-luck shareholders to the curb, because this is "how capitalism works". It was an unusually blunt attempt to preemptively push back at the perception that this guarantee of FDIC-uninsured deposits will be branded a 'bailout'. (I predict that this attempt will fail and this will widely be perceived as a 'bailout' in casual and political discourse, which is the exact forum at which they've aimed this message.)

After 2008, the public gained awareness of the consolidation -- both forced and emergent -- that occurs in response to these sorts of crises. Public opinion views these outcomes unfavorably, because they seem unfair and irreversible, albeit no palatable alternatives have emerged that are acceptable to both to the public and government and industry incumbents.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/silicon-valley-bank-failure-depos...

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#92
post #15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that have made the difference? I thought that restricted banks to "safe" investments, which SVB's likely were. It's simply that they couldn't extract enough liquidity from that position to cover the run. Or were there other restrictions?

SVB failed because they bought government bonds, typically the most secure thing. The problem is the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, which made the bonds pointless. They Fed will supposedly keep raising rates, which I expect will make more banks fail. After all, if the most-secure thing (bonds) is not secure, what is?

The problem is that no one has been allowed to price in (real) inflation risks into bonds for a very long time as the fed has artificially suppressed rates through QE.

Bonds have only ever been considered ‘safe’ from a repayment perspective (it’s the only thing they really get graded on risk wise), and even then junk bonds are a real thing. The value of the bond shrinking due to inflation is always a unquantifiable future risk that typically gets priced in price/interest wise by the buyer/underwriter - but with the fed suppressing rates? All bets are off.

Those who got those 2% mortgages though have a lot to be thankful for. As long as the zombie hordes don’t get them in the coming debt apocalypse anyway (/s).

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#93
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really important to make this distinction: those bonds were, and still are safe investments, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. The issue is that you have to wait for them to mature. So SVB had too much of their depositor's money tied up in long term investments. I don't want to turn this into another tutorial about pricing works on the bond market, but the issue isn't that…

And they also had a bank run. I think it was Stratechery that mentioned everyone knew the issue SVB was in for months. Had there been no bank run, SVB would possibly have been fine. With that said, it's good they got punished for poor decisions given their depositor profile.

That’s a pretty solid ‘as long as no one says the emperor has no clothes, he is fully clothed’ line though?

If it was a short period of time (a week?) this was going on, then sure. The emperor darting to the bathroom without his clothes on is unlikely to be a scandal after all.

But even if fed rates dropped tomorrow those bonds will not recover to par, because inflation on their principal amounts has already happened, and their interest rates are too low to ever recover back how much they have lost value barring truly exceptional deflation.

So unless they somehow come up with even more cash on hand to be able to avoid ever realizing those losses (good luck when everyone starts drawing down savings and boomers start retiring more and more), they’re boned inevitably.

Deflation wise, the fed will fight THAT even harder than the current inflation fight they are doing, and that’s relatively easy to combat - print more money. It’s why they’ve been printing money since ‘08.

Since the expectation is that inflation will continue for some time of course makes the math and present value even worse, but there is no plausible situation right now where the expected future dollar value of those bonds will be high enough to recoup a large percentage of their purchase value in today’s or a future dates currency.

That value is gone.

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#94
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just different circumstances? IndyMac famously paid uninsured depositors back 85 cents on the dollar, right? But IndyMac was also plowing depositor dollars into a portfolio of Alt-A MBS's.

A regulatory regime that makes depositors whole when a bank fails due to not managing their interest rate risk appropriately but not when they mismanage their credit risk feels even stranger than just admitting that the fdic cares more about some depositors than others.

That's not an accurate summary.

The regulatory regime is one that makes depositors whole when doing otherwise seems likely to cause a major crisis in the banking system. Which we've had for a long time. It merely seems inconsistent because evidence of "likely to cause a major crisis" differs by current possible crisis.

As https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/banking-in-very-uncer... explains in painful detail, the reasons why they likely concluded that there is systemic risk. But long story short, rising interest rates caused the banking sector to have $620 billion in unrealized losses. Unsurprising since the interest rate rise was *INTENDED* to make people lose money, making money more valuable relative to goods and services, which reduces inflations.

But $620 billion is substantially more than the $130 billion in the FDIC insurance fund. It is substantially less than the $2 trillion in equity in the banking sector, but both losses and equity are unevenly spread. Therefore there are banks under water, and others that are fine. But nobody is sure which are which. And given cash outflows from worried people, we were about to find out the hard way. And once there is a bank panic, even fine banks become not fine.

Like Wile E. Coyote, running off this cliff works fine until you look down. But we've looked down. And now the whole sector needs saving. Thus these actions.

They will go back to normal behavior once the crisis is over.

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#95
post #83
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't see the market value thing as all that complicated. A banks liabilities are (roughly) instantaneous. They must honor withdrawals when they are requested, so their assets must be measured accordingly. There is no other reasonable definition of instanteous value except for market value. This is an extraordinary advantage of having large markets for things. Granted, it's sometimes hard to establish market…

I guess the core of my argument is that SVB's viability and the damage caused by their implosion are separable concerns, and FDIC has rather neatly separated them. Nobody has to take a bath on SVB's bond portfolio; deposits are guaranteed, so they can just be held to maturity; there's no pressure to sell. Meanwhile: SVB's equity is zeroed out, so they've paid the ultimate price for their incompetence.

I think you're assuming here that the HTM accounting means the bonds don't actually lose value if they're held to maturity? That's not the case; it's just arbitrary accounting treatment, and the regulatory decision to permit such accounting is a big part of why the SVB blew up. Accounting rules are supposed to reflect economic reality to some extent, but they obviously don't do so exactly. For example, under FIFO inventory accounting, two identical boxes in the warehouse might be on the books at different values; but I assume you'd agree they're still actually worth the same amount, since they're identical.

All bonds get held to maturity by someone (unless they default, but that's not the problem here). The FMV of the bond is determined by the value of the bond's remaining cash flows to that person; so if the FMV went down, then that should be a clue that value was fundamentally lost, regardless of who's holding the bond.

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#96
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually let their interest rate hedges expire in '22 (while they had no CRO). That was insane. Every banker knows about duration/rate risk so this is really next level incompetence. The best spin I can think of is that they assumed HTM was sufficient to prevent a bank run, but it wasn't.

If the comment below is accurate, HTM assets can not legally be hedged against interest rate risk. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35130813

i saw that, but then i also saw matt levine saying they should have hedged their htm assets against interest rate risk, which presumably he wouldn't have said if it were illegal

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#97
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually let their interest rate hedges expire in '22 (while they had no CRO). That was insane. Every banker knows about duration/rate risk so this is really next level incompetence. The best spin I can think of is that they assumed HTM was sufficient to prevent a bank run, but it wasn't.

If the comment below is accurate, HTM assets can not legally be hedged against interest rate risk. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35130813

They could have hedged and marked to market though. In that case, the accounting would have said they were fine, and they would actually have been fine.

In reality, they didn't hedge, and they used the HTM accounting treatment. So the accounting still said they were fine, since that permitted them to ignore the loss when interest rates increased; but accounting doesn't change reality, so they actually weren't fine and they blew up.

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#98
post #18

People seem to have a really hard time with the idea that, in the SVB debacle, the system worked effectively and pretty much the way it was planned to. It's not even clear what people are upset about. There's an article on the front page of The Atlantic today about how angry we should be about SVB, and if you read it, it's hard to figure out who those angry people should be. Equity is getting zeroed out. Management w…

Shouldn't the executives have to pay back their bonuses they got just before the FDIC intervened? Aren't they effectively subsidized by the govt?

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#99
post #18

People seem to have a really hard time with the idea that, in the SVB debacle, the system worked effectively and pretty much the way it was planned to. It's not even clear what people are upset about. There's an article on the front page of The Atlantic today about how angry we should be about SVB, and if you read it, it's hard to figure out who those angry people should be. Equity is getting zeroed out. Management w…

> Depositors were made whole almost immediately

This is what I'm mad about. FDIC insures to $250k in normal cases. It should not have been used to insure depositors for their full deposit amounts here.

Re: How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?

#100
post #18

People seem to have a really hard time with the idea that, in the SVB debacle, the system worked effectively and pretty much the way it was planned to. It's not even clear what people are upset about. There's an article on the front page of The Atlantic today about how angry we should be about SVB, and if you read it, it's hard to figure out who those angry people should be. Equity is getting zeroed out. Management w…

I dont know if I agree with your assessment.

> Equity is getting zeroed out. Management was fired. Depositors were made whole almost immediately. SVB's assets are apparently not impaired; SVB would have held them to maturity had the bank run not happened, and now somebody else will instead.

Part of the problem is that the system that enabled them to end up in this situation is the erosion of Dodd-Frank. The systemic risk to depositors isn't going away. If pissant SVB (relative to it's contemporaries) can lobby congress effectively imagine what other banks are up to. Speculation? Sure you can say I'm speculating. But the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

> Meanwhile: the point of the FDIC system is for customers not to have to do this kind of risk assessment themselves.

The issue of course is that the total balances required the FDIC to dip into special capital reserves in order to make the bold faced lie the taxpayer won't front this.

Anyone who knows the surface level details of a bank know that these FDIC "loans" are effectively collateralized by the taxpayer. Banks pay an assessment. With what money? The depositor's money. A perfect example of a hidden tax.

> But SVB is gone, so it's not much fun calling them out. I feel like people are flailing looking for someone else to blame.

Credit Suisse is in big trouble and getting a bailout. Several other banks have collapsed in the wake of SVB. The only people not worried have their heads buried so deep in the sand only their feet are showing. Calling Chicken Little because you believe it was only SVB and not a massive market level problem suddenly beginning to show it's head is not a very effective argument.

I'd ask you to consider the economy that allowed these levels of capital to even exist. Years of ZIRP and near-ZIRP allowing effectively free money. As it stands, the mainstream media currently blames the fed for this and implores it to once again lower rates. The problem of course is that there has been no sign of stoppage in market speculation and we are only now starting to see VCs really tighten their belts. History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes and terrible, borderline predatory, VC funding practices begin to approximate NINJA loans in the limit. There's no reason to believe it's just SVB and there are plenty of reasons to believe we have very serious economic concerns ahead of us. Only difference this time is the criminals responsible will be wearing Patagonia.

Post reply on HN