3 ms·

You say it takes a run, but all it really takes is an aggregate change in deposit behavior. Like, for instance, your disproportionate share of startup clients

You say it takes a run, but all it really takes is an aggregate change in deposit behavior. Like, for instance, your disproportionate share of startup clients easing off the cheap loans you had been offering them, because they’re no longer so cheap, and instead drawing down on (or moving) the balances that you had insisted they keep with you as collateral. Trouble was brewing on both sides of the business, not just on the asset position.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
That’s what led up to the need to create more liquidity. The run happened after that when depositors spooked and drew down faster than the bank could liquidate assets. They were never, even MTM, under water. They just couldn’t raise enough cash in a single day to pay out all the withdrawals. But the cause of the run is the suspicious part to my mind. It feels orchestrated, and I have heard rumblings that Theils founders fund was spreading a whisper campaign against SVB while shorting.
- at-fates-hands 4y ago
  >> But the cause of the run is the suspicious part to my mind. I've heard multiple reports that one of their large investors got wind of their attempts to get a $2B loan so they wouldn't lose that money in their bond investments and thought it was a huge red flag and was the first to take out all of their money. The theory goes it was a large SV company, and news travelled on social media and the SV financial circles about they did and their belief that the bank was about to implode. This created a long line forming on Friday morning of companies wanting to get their money out as well. I agree, I'm not sure if the rumor was enough to spook people, or an orchestrated move by several companies, once one company found out what they were doing - but its very suspicious. Add in the founders were busy taking money at the same time they were liquidating their positions, which I'm sure the SEC will have something to say about as well. Add in all the people who may have found out early and took out short positions as well who are now poised to possibly make a good chunk of money in all this chaos.
- tripletao 4y ago
  > They were never, even MTM, under water. This is completely false. If the SVB (or any other bank) had been adequately capitalized on a MTM basis, then they could have borrowed from the Fed to withstand any bank run. The SVB was not: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balance-sheet-time-bomb-at-svb-was-sitting-in-plain-sight https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balan... The hold-to-maturity accounting allowed them to pretend otherwise, disregarding losses on long-term bonds when interest rates increased. They--and their regulators, since such accounting is perfectly legal--hoped this would let them ignore the problem until they could earn their way out of the hole. Instead interest rates increased further, the hole got deeper, and the SVB blew up. It's not impossible that Thiel somehow benefitted from the collapse, though I'm not aware of any evidence for that yet. It's also possible that he simply didn't want his money in an insolvent bank.
- MrMan 4y ago
  this is a lie - they were insolvent and their assets were worth less than their liabilities.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

That’s what led up to the need to create more liquidity. The run happened after that when depositors spooked and drew down faster than the bank could liquidate assets. They were never, even MTM, under water. They just couldn’t raise enough cash in a single day to pay out all the withdrawals. But the cause of the run is the suspicious part to my mind. It feels orchestrated, and I have heard rumblings that Theils founders fund was spreading a whisper campaign against SVB while shorting.

at-fates-hands 4y ago
>> But the cause of the run is the suspicious part to my mind. I've heard multiple reports that one of their large investors got wind of their attempts to get a $2B loan so they wouldn't lose that money in their bond investments and thought it was a huge red flag and was the first to take out all of their money. The theory goes it was a large SV company, and news travelled on social media and the SV financial circles about they did and their belief that the bank was about to implode. This created a long line forming on Friday morning of companies wanting to get their money out as well. I agree, I'm not sure if the rumor was enough to spook people, or an orchestrated move by several companies, once one company found out what they were doing - but its very suspicious. Add in the founders were busy taking money at the same time they were liquidating their positions, which I'm sure the SEC will have something to say about as well. Add in all the people who may have found out early and took out short positions as well who are now poised to possibly make a good chunk of money in all this chaos.
tripletao 4y ago
> They were never, even MTM, under water. This is completely false. If the SVB (or any other bank) had been adequately capitalized on a MTM basis, then they could have borrowed from the Fed to withstand any bank run. The SVB was not: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balance-sheet-time-bomb-at-svb-was-sitting-in-plain-sight https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balan... The hold-to-maturity accounting allowed them to pretend otherwise, disregarding losses on long-term bonds when interest rates increased. They--and their regulators, since such accounting is perfectly legal--hoped this would let them ignore the problem until they could earn their way out of the hole. Instead interest rates increased further, the hole got deeper, and the SVB blew up. It's not impossible that Thiel somehow benefitted from the collapse, though I'm not aware of any evidence for that yet. It's also possible that he simply didn't want his money in an insolvent bank.
MrMan 4y ago
this is a lie - they were insolvent and their assets were worth less than their liabilities.