3 ms·
I will add another note here, with respect to this - You're effectively paying for the lower rate of return that a treasury bill has because it's insured again
by patientplatypus 4y ago
I will add another note here, with respect to this -
You're effectively paying for the lower rate of return that a treasury bill has because it's insured against risk, without being able to take advantage of that insurance. This is true in a roundabout way - given that the Federal government has to bail out banks during a financial crisis their return to the investor reflects that risk (not only in absolute terms but in the way the yield tracks the overall economy). Most banks should stick to treasuries because they don't service institutional clients and so can take advantage of that insurance. That wasn't the case here.
I should mention that here the risk was that the Treasury yields were increasing faster than the Treasury notes on hand because the Federal Reserve had so aggressively tightened the Federal Funds Rate. This would cause investors to take their money out of the bank and invest the money in another bank that had a higher rate of return. However, in most banks this doesn't precipitate a bank run because if most investors are under the FDIC $250,000 limit then the customers know the bank is insured against default.
Other banks that have large numbers of institutional investors that are over the FDIC $250,000 limit may also be in trouble, because they may also be liable to have bank runs, if they're primarily invested in older US Treasuries.
In essence, what the Federal Reserve has done, wittingly or not, is to destabilize those banks that have large numbers of institutional investors but are operating primarily as traditional small-scale banks holding mostly US Treasuries. This may be a good thing in the long run as it would clear out those institutions that are effectively operating as asset management companies without diversifying their portfolios as they should.
There are probably more than a couple more banks internationally that are holding ex-crypto funds that are not properly diversified. If other countries likewise quickly tighten their rates I wonder if there will be other banks that fail for similar reasons.