3 ms·
I'd argue a big difference between 2008 and now is that in 2008 we mostly saw an institutional run on the bank after Lehman, i.e. money market funds and other b
by cm2187 4y ago
I'd argue a big difference between 2008 and now is that in 2008 we mostly saw an institutional run on the bank after Lehman, i.e. money market funds and other banks not trusting banks and refusing to lend longer term than overnight.
What we are seeing now is a retail run on the bank, the electronic equivalent of people hearing rumours on the street and queuing in front of branches (except now with twitter and their banking app). In some cases for good reason, others not so good.
I think the difference is that retail depositors don't look at financial ratios (and shouldn't be expected to be able to understand them). So how do you convince them?
One thing that is certain is that contrary to what the article says, none of the regulations introduced in response of the financial crisis helped. Higher capital ratios? Credit Suisse had 14% CET1 ratio and there was still a run. Higher liquidity requirement? Credit Suisse had over 200% LCR and there was still a run. Bailin? The swiss regulator judged that doing a full bailin of a large financial institution would be too disruptive to financial markets so only bailed in a small tranche of the CS capital stack (AT1). So what tools exactly are available to regulators that weren't in 2008?
- fijiaarone 4y agoNothing happened “after Lehman”. The Lehman collapse was a result of what came before it — the liquidity crisis, the bank runs, and the stock market crash. Does anyone remember the sign boards outside every bank offering up to 10% interest on short term CDs in the fall of 2008? When my mom called in February this year about opening a “savings account” for the grandkids at 5 1/2% interest, I knew something was up. Because the going rate the month before (and ever since 2009) was something like 1/10 of 1%