The article does something it shouldn't do: Conflate short term interest rates with holding 10 year treasuries. At least compare like for like. The yield cur

The article does something it shouldn't do: Conflate short term interest rates with holding 10 year treasuries. At least compare like for like. The yield curve has moved up, but not by the 4% in the article, and 'up' compared to.. quantitative easing time. From https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value=2019 https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/... 2023-03-14: 10Y: 3.64 2021-03-12: 10Y: 1.64 2019-03-14: 10Y: 2.63 2017-03-14: 10Y: 2.60 2015-03-13: 10Y: 2.13 2013-03-14: 10Y: 2.04 2011-03-14: 10Y: 3.36 2009-03-14: 10Y: 2.89 2007-03-14: 10Y: 4.53 2005-03-14: 10Y: 4.52 2003-03-14: 10Y: 3.72 2001-03-14: 10Y: 4.84 > We went multiple years without a bank failure, of any size, in the United States. Because short term funding has been next to free. > The losses banks have taken on their assets are real. They're not real. That's entirely the point. They're financial assets that are locked in to fixed rate returns. If the assets were real, they'd be variable rate. Like the chicken feed that the author points out is an input to the cost of an egg. The variable chicken feed costs feed into the variable price of an egg. When chicken feed costs increase but you're stuck selling the eggs at a fixed price, you have a problem. Risk doesn't disappear, at best it gets mitigated or bought for the value it provides. When mortgages have fixed interest rates, the interest rate risk needs to go somewhere.