4 ms·

>"We, JPMorgan, are willing to bet $5bn that First Direct does not fail, with no upside to us if they do not" is a rather powerful statement. It seems to me th

>"We, JPMorgan, are willing to bet $5bn that First Direct does not fail, with no upside to us if they do not" is a rather powerful statement. It seems to me that there is a considerable amount of risk to the participating banks if FRB fails. "Hold the line" is right - if more banks fail, these participating banks will lose a lot more than their $1B each. I do wonder if there's something specific to FRB that made them pick this - is it the most likely to go next? Did it have published liquidity issues?

throwanem 4y ago
It's been all over the news all week as the likeliest next failure, yes.
uCano1 4y ago
> It seems to me that there is a considerable amount of risk to the participating banks if FRB fails. "Hold the line" is right - if more banks fail, these participating banks will lose a lot more than their $1B each. $5 billion each.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Up to $5bn. The actual likely value at risk is a lot smaller; would need a First Direct balance sheet to estimate it. (Some are subscribed at $1bn and some at $5bn. That must have been an interesting meeting.)
- lxgr 4y ago
  A 100% haircut would mean that their assets are effectively worthless. I highly doubt that the depositing banks would have done this if that were the case.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Even if their assets are things like Treasury notes? I'm assuming JPM would get first dibs on those types of assets if First Republic went under, no?
    - lxgr 4y ago
      Yes, that‘s my point: Even in case of an unprecedented interest rate hike and 10-year treasuries, the haircut due to depreciating asset values would not be 100% but much less.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Sorry, I misinterpreted your first post but thank you for clarifying.
stephen_g 4y ago
They would definitely have very carefully checked their books. I expect they wouldn’t do it if the combined amount was not such that it all but guarantees the bank won’t fail. Obviously these big banks have a strong interest in maintaining confidence in the wider banking sector so want to make sure it doesn’t go under.
michaelt 4y ago
As I understand things, the problem at SVB was that they had customer deposits tied up in multi-year treasury notes which are among the most secure investments going but they couldn't withdraw the money fast enough to keep up with customers' instant-access accounts. Having your money be secure but inaccessible for several months is obviously a problem if you're a business that needs to make payroll, or a crypto exchange that needs to allow customer withdrawals. If the bank has plenty of cash but some of it's time-locked, then JPMorgan aren't at risk of losing their entire $5bn - they merely risk having it tied up for a year or two, perhaps getting an uncompetitive interest rate.
- ec109685 4y ago
  It’s also a problem if another bank is offering a higher interest rate. Customers will smartly ask for their deposits back to get interest elsewhere requiring that a bank sells its assets early, which isn’t possible to do so if they are locked into long dated underwater assets.

throwanem 4y ago

It's been all over the news all week as the likeliest next failure, yes.

uCano1 4y ago

> It seems to me that there is a considerable amount of risk to the participating banks if FRB fails. "Hold the line" is right - if more banks fail, these participating banks will lose a lot more than their $1B each. $5 billion each.

pjc50 4y ago
Up to $5bn. The actual likely value at risk is a lot smaller; would need a First Direct balance sheet to estimate it. (Some are subscribed at $1bn and some at $5bn. That must have been an interesting meeting.)
lxgr 4y ago
A 100% haircut would mean that their assets are effectively worthless. I highly doubt that the depositing banks would have done this if that were the case.
- bumby 4y ago
  Even if their assets are things like Treasury notes? I'm assuming JPM would get first dibs on those types of assets if First Republic went under, no?
  - lxgr 4y ago
    Yes, that‘s my point: Even in case of an unprecedented interest rate hike and 10-year treasuries, the haircut due to depreciating asset values would not be 100% but much less.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Sorry, I misinterpreted your first post but thank you for clarifying.

stephen_g 4y ago

They would definitely have very carefully checked their books. I expect they wouldn’t do it if the combined amount was not such that it all but guarantees the bank won’t fail. Obviously these big banks have a strong interest in maintaining confidence in the wider banking sector so want to make sure it doesn’t go under.

michaelt 4y ago

As I understand things, the problem at SVB was that they had customer deposits tied up in multi-year treasury notes which are among the most secure investments going but they couldn't withdraw the money fast enough to keep up with customers' instant-access accounts. Having your money be secure but inaccessible for several months is obviously a problem if you're a business that needs to make payroll, or a crypto exchange that needs to allow customer withdrawals. If the bank has plenty of cash but some of it's time-locked, then JPMorgan aren't at risk of losing their entire $5bn - they merely risk having it tied up for a year or two, perhaps getting an uncompetitive interest rate.

ec109685 4y ago
It’s also a problem if another bank is offering a higher interest rate. Customers will smartly ask for their deposits back to get interest elsewhere requiring that a bank sells its assets early, which isn’t possible to do so if they are locked into long dated underwater assets.