5 ms·
Absolutely this... how is this not a bailout? Insofar as the amatuer hour banks that didn't buy swaps on the interest rate risk of their unmarked treasuries an
by oraphalous 4y ago
Absolutely this... how is this not a bailout? Insofar as the amatuer hour banks that didn't buy swaps on the interest rate risk of their unmarked treasuries and mbs will now be saved from going under - for a year at least.
- astrange 4y agoA bailout is when you rescue equity or bond holders. There aren't any specific people being rescued here. And there aren't any other large banks doing that either. That was a SVB problem.
- simple-thoughts 4y agoIf a lending facility, only available to banks, at par for assets that are under par is not a bailout… What would you call it?
- lmm 4y agoIt's not allowing the bank to continue to operate under its current owners. Equity holders are likely getting zeroed and debt holders are likely taking a haircut. It's deposit insurance, not a bailout (at least in the sense of how the term is normally used), and where the money is coming from is irrelevant to that.
- pishpash 4y agoThose are not the terms of the BTFP. Nowhere does it say that to access this facility you must go under FDIC receivership and wipe out shareholders and bondholders.
- ejdyksen 4y agoIt’s not available to banks, only to used-to-be-banks.
- simple-thoughts 4y agoFalse. Check the linked press release in my parent comment - the BTFP is available to all banks and allows them to use their under par assets as collateral for loans at par from the Federal Reserve. “ Borrower Eligibility: Any U.S. federally insured depository institution (including a bank, savings association, or credit union) or U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank that is eligible for primary credit (see 12 CFR 201.4(a)) is eligible to borrow under the Program. “
- ejdyksen 4y agoFair. Thought you were talking about making SVB depositors whole. I’d call the BTFP a mechanism to stabilize the banking system in the US, given rising interest rates. I guess I don’t care as much about the semantics, though.
- pishpash 4y agoIt wipes out losses accrued up to March 12, 2023 on eligible securities, for one year. It's taxpayer funded. Terms are super generous: only a 10bp premium. It's at least a bailout for one year. It may or may not get extended.
- slv77 4y agoIt also works against the Federal Reserves stated policy of shrinking their balance sheet due to inflation.
- pishpash 4y agoI do think it's somewhat clever. It basically lets the private banking sector control the pace of QT. If liquidity dries up somewhere in the system it does a one-year targeted QE.
- astrange 4y agoI'd say it's bailout-y to value collateral above market value, but isn't totally free money and we haven't seen all the terms for it. At least the Fed is safer holding long term bonds than anyone else.
- twblalock 4y ago> If a lending facility, only available to banks, at par for assets that are under par is not a bailout… > What would you call it? Obviously I'd call it a loan.
- anon291 4y agoDepositors are just shareholders with higher priority and an apparently unlimited (previously capped at 250k) insurance policy
- rvnx 4y agoUnlimited insurance AND still keeping the profits from the juicy interests.
- xeromal 4y ago> Planes wouldn't have stopped to exist, cars wouldn't have stopped to exist. > The entities would have disappeared and new ones would get created. That seems unnecessary considering how many jobs were at stake.
- astrange 4y agoThe airlines got bailouts specifically because they had union contracts that wouldn't have survived otherwise. It was for the workers. Though, planes probably would've ceased to exist eventually, they need continual maintenance.
- anon291 4y agoHow about, the government simply take an equity position in these companies. That way, when the inevitable unicorns come along, they can make the VC profit. Instead, the government is simply taking a pure loss... for what? Literally, an equity position is a net win. The loss is capped out at the equity position (which they're already losing now), while the gain is unlimited. Sure, there is every interest in protecting workers. But we're also protecting shareholders in these companies, and eliminating their risk, while not taking any of the reward. When these shareholders make money on the startups, they will be first in line to demand low taxes and lauding the 'free' market. How silly
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- basch 4y agoHow is the bank “saved”? All it’s assets seized, all shareholders removed, all leadership let go. The banks customers are saved, the bank is dissolved.
- politician 4y agoThe problem arises when you look past one bank and consider the banking system as a whole. When the next bank fails and its depositors are backstopped by the FDIC at 100%, then again and again, eventually the “fund” should run out. In theory. In practice, of course, that will never be allowed to happen. FDIC insurance is now effectively infinite.
- hypothesis 4y ago>FDIC insurance is now effectively infinite. That clearly being the case, what does it mean for insurance premiums?
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoThis is from the top HN post: > Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders 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.
- hypothesis 4y agoSo, going forward, are they planning to do a “special assessment” for every failure? Because before banks were paying premiums into the system, just like an insurance.
- junofan 4y agoYes, the premiums are called assessments.
- Lazare 4y ago> Insofar as the amatuer hour banks [...] will now be saved from going under [...] That's the exact opposite of what's happening. Signature has, in fact, gone under.
- colechristensen 4y agoThe bank isn’t saved, it’s gone. Shareholders wiped out, anybody like executives paid in stock will have lost millions and soon many will be unemployed. A new bank will be found to buy all of the assets. It is somewhat of a bailout of depositors, but only in so far as the fed is going to print a little money to buy some securities (er, use them as collateral for loans) somewhat above a firesale market rate. Banks are still going to lose money but are being protected from a panic collapse at no real cost to taxpayers.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoDo most banks hedge that risk? I could imagine that being pretty expensive. Who takes the other side of a bet like that?