4 ms·

If you buy bonds you can lose money. To say they're risk free is wrong. Treasuries carry no credit risk, but they do carry duration risk. If you buy treasury bo

If you buy bonds you can lose money. To say they're risk free is wrong. Treasuries carry no credit risk, but they do carry duration risk. If you buy treasury bonds above par, you can also lose money even if you hold to maturity (though it would be illogical to buy them with negative yield. However we have seen this being done in Europe anyway) Duration risk is risk. Taking on 10-30y maturity is not "risk free" Many of these banks are holding Munis and other non-treasury bonds, which are not free of credit risk and can be worth 0 in some circumstances. I don't know about SVB's balance sheet, just speaking generally

shadowgovt 4y ago
In this context, "lose" money means "You won't get as much money out as you would have if you had invested the money in something else?" Because if I buy a t-bond at $5, I'm expecting to get at least $5 back when it matures unless Uncle Sam has died.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  If you buy a T-Bond at 110 the treasury will pay you back 100 at maturity, thus you lost money in nominal terms (depending on coupon rate). This has been happening in Europe with their previously negative yielding debt What you mean to say is there's no credit risk. Not the same thing as you can't lose money. Saying you are guaranteed X dollars 30 years from now does not mean much at all if people need money today. This is not "safe" or prudent
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Yes, but you would get more than that if you bought an (equally safe) treasury bond today. So it doesn’t make sense to claim that your bond is “still worth $5”. Also, $5 today is not the same currency as $5 in ten years.
- kortilla 4y ago
  No, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that a bank needs to be able to pay people when they withdraw their money. You can’t sell a bond that will be worth $5 in 30 years to get $5 in cash now when people can buy them from the fed for $3. This has nothing to do with America, this is you not understanding duration risk.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Right, but the bank didn't invest 100% of its funds in MBS and t-bills; IIUC they had plenty to manage their projected operations cost and regular withdrawal / deposit activity. What changed is the panic / bank run. The panic sank them, but it'd sink basically any bank because no bank keeps enough liquid assets to clear all its deposit obligations. ... so SVB not only didn't have cash, it didn't have assets people were willing to buy / loan against to cover enough withdrawals to stop the run even though those assets had guaranteed ROI, which is interesting to me. Not enough lenders / potential creditors think some 10-year T-bills (and bailing out one of the biggest banks in the country on the lender's terms) is worth it? Interesting.

shadowgovt 4y ago

In this context, "lose" money means "You won't get as much money out as you would have if you had invested the money in something else?" Because if I buy a t-bond at $5, I'm expecting to get at least $5 back when it matures unless Uncle Sam has died.

adam_arthur 4y ago
If you buy a T-Bond at 110 the treasury will pay you back 100 at maturity, thus you lost money in nominal terms (depending on coupon rate). This has been happening in Europe with their previously negative yielding debt What you mean to say is there's no credit risk. Not the same thing as you can't lose money. Saying you are guaranteed X dollars 30 years from now does not mean much at all if people need money today. This is not "safe" or prudent
School-Cotton 4y ago
Yes, but you would get more than that if you bought an (equally safe) treasury bond today. So it doesn’t make sense to claim that your bond is “still worth $5”. Also, $5 today is not the same currency as $5 in ten years.
kortilla 4y ago
No, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that a bank needs to be able to pay people when they withdraw their money. You can’t sell a bond that will be worth $5 in 30 years to get $5 in cash now when people can buy them from the fed for $3. This has nothing to do with America, this is you not understanding duration risk.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Right, but the bank didn't invest 100% of its funds in MBS and t-bills; IIUC they had plenty to manage their projected operations cost and regular withdrawal / deposit activity. What changed is the panic / bank run. The panic sank them, but it'd sink basically any bank because no bank keeps enough liquid assets to clear all its deposit obligations. ... so SVB not only didn't have cash, it didn't have assets people were willing to buy / loan against to cover enough withdrawals to stop the run even though those assets had guaranteed ROI, which is interesting to me. Not enough lenders / potential creditors think some 10-year T-bills (and bailing out one of the biggest banks in the country on the lender's terms) is worth it? Interesting.