You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Feldman: You Can Bank on it: A Cheat Sheet on the SVB Collapse
2023-03-20
By Clarice Feldman

[AmericanThinker] This week, a lot of attention has been focused on the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank. It is, in fact, a story of faulty accounting practices, poor government oversight, and the effects of government micromanaging markets at the same time that it fails in its oversight responsibilities. And you will be paying for it.

ACCOUNTING SHENANIGANS
Over at the Wall Street Journal, William L. Silber explains this better than anyone, and in terms anyone who ever purchased a government bond can understand. They are safe. The problem is liquidity:

SVB held tens of billions of dollars in long-term government bonds. On its face, this may seem like a prudent investment for a bank, but Treasury securities are riskless only when held to maturity. If you have to sell before then, you can easily lose money if market rates have risen since you first purchased the bond. For example, buying a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond with a 2% coupon at par and holding it for 10 years earns you 2% per annum. But if you sell early and rates have jumped -- say, 4% since you bought the bond -- then the price will have declined to about $838 per $1,000 face value, meaning you incur a loss of $162 per $1,000 bond.

The bank officers know, or certainly should know that is the case, and when the Federal Reserve increases interest those bonds are worth far less than an accounting system which shows it as a “held to maturity” item. You have incurred a loss if you have to cash it before maturity. But even so the income from the bond is listed as income, allowing the bank officers and managers to reward themselves handsomely for the “profits” on investment. Now you’d think federal regulators would know this, and they probably did, but looked the other way, for which they seem not to be held accountable.

SVB ... held about $90 billion of its $120 billion bond portfolio in its held-to-maturity investment account. As interest rates rose over the past few years, SVB did little to hedge against its exposure to rate hikes. So when depositors came demanding cash, the bank had far less than its book showed.

But that’s not all there is to the story.
Read the rest at the link
Posted by:badanov

#7  Great business model built on great business models
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-03-20 13:10  

#6  So it does appear that they had many more bad loans than has been apparent. And I guess that that is the reason why the FDIC swooped in.

If the only problem were the long-term treasuries underwater, SVB could have borrowed money from the Fed and ridden out the storm until the Fed lowered rates again (I know, I know, no conflict of interest here) and the treasuries returned to par. That is what the Fed is for, and its Regulation A (hint: the very first regulation) covers lending to banks. Since that did not happen, there has to be more than just the treasury maturity mismatch. And bad loans, depending on vast federal subsidies, appear to be the ultimate culprit.
Posted by: Tom   2023-03-20 12:39  

#5   For example, buying a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond with a 2% coupon at par and holding it for 10 years earns you 2% per annum.

Will that 2% per annum cover inflation?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2023-03-20 12:08  

#4  I don't know how much more of "having the adults back in charge" the country can take.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-03-20 07:44  

#3  /\ So, not a 'new term' at all. In spite of my best efforts, I continue to learn things here.

Thank you Double-D.


Posted by: Besoeker   2023-03-20 07:31  

#2  I believe Nouriel Roubini, not exactly an Austrian economist, said 10-15 years ago something like "profits are privatized while losses are socialized".
Posted by: DooDahMan   2023-03-20 04:32  

#1  Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

So the 'good' banks and investors must now cover the bad bank and it's investors. I believe the new term is a "socialized loss."
Posted by: Besoeker   2023-03-20 02:38  

00:00