3 ms·

Are there no small failures this time around because of ongoing consolidation? This seems to be a dominant trend in economics across the board. Does anyone have

Are there no small failures this time around because of ongoing consolidation? This seems to be a dominant trend in economics across the board. Does anyone have a good answer why?

krona 4y ago
The trend is a form of preferential attachment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
Some midsize banks got a massive inflow of deposits during the pandemic and they didn't know what to do with the money, so they parked it in "safe" investments like mortgage backed securities. Then when the pandemic subsided, people started burning down their savings accounts, and interest rates started skyrocketing. All the banks' money was tied up in all these 30-year mortgages that nobody wants anymore because they're paying like 2.5% and inflation is 8% now, but they're still forced to sell them for terrible prices just to keep their ATMs full. Eventually word gets out about what's happening, there's a bank run, and the bank starts death spiraling. Massive banks have nothing to worry about because if the government allows them to fail they'll take the entire economy down with them. And (presumably) smaller banks weren't under the same pressure from investors to generate returns on idle capital, so they didn't commit the same sins as the midsize banks.
tickerticker 4y ago
SVB's fail was because of radical speed in deposit inflow, which was invested in fixed rate bonds just at the moment that the Fed was on a rising rate ratchet. Because of an affluent clientele, they had unusually high % of uninsured deposits. Very unlikely that a small bank would have had the need to layoff so many deposits in such a short time span. Very unlikely that a smaller bank would have had the high % of uninsured deposits. These are the funds that jump ship immediately. First Republic fail was because of large pool of fixed rate assets....(jumbo low-rate mortgages and Treasury Notes) in a rising rate context. They also had an affluent clientele and thus a high % of uninsured deposits. The fixed rate assets lost so much value while rates rose, that they had no tangible equity. Thus, the hot money deposits raced out of the bank. Smaller banks typically don't have such a concentration of affluent customers, which means that more of their clientele would be under the threshold for FDIC insurance. Smaller banks probably have a good book of commercial loans which are commonly priced at a variable rate. I am baffled that SVB and FRB did not hedge their fixed rate portfolios with interest rate swaps....Maybe their mind was on staying abreast of the white-hot tech sector instead of wringing their hands about the next Fed rate decision.

Are there no small failures this time around because of ongoing consolidation? This seems to be a dominant trend in economics across the board. Does anyone have a good answer why?

krona 4y ago

The trend is a form of preferential attachment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago

Some midsize banks got a massive inflow of deposits during the pandemic and they didn't know what to do with the money, so they parked it in "safe" investments like mortgage backed securities. Then when the pandemic subsided, people started burning down their savings accounts, and interest rates started skyrocketing. All the banks' money was tied up in all these 30-year mortgages that nobody wants anymore because they're paying like 2.5% and inflation is 8% now, but they're still forced to sell them for terrible prices just to keep their ATMs full. Eventually word gets out about what's happening, there's a bank run, and the bank starts death spiraling. Massive banks have nothing to worry about because if the government allows them to fail they'll take the entire economy down with them. And (presumably) smaller banks weren't under the same pressure from investors to generate returns on idle capital, so they didn't commit the same sins as the midsize banks.

tickerticker 4y ago

SVB's fail was because of radical speed in deposit inflow, which was invested in fixed rate bonds just at the moment that the Fed was on a rising rate ratchet. Because of an affluent clientele, they had unusually high % of uninsured deposits. Very unlikely that a small bank would have had the need to layoff so many deposits in such a short time span. Very unlikely that a smaller bank would have had the high % of uninsured deposits. These are the funds that jump ship immediately. First Republic fail was because of large pool of fixed rate assets....(jumbo low-rate mortgages and Treasury Notes) in a rising rate context. They also had an affluent clientele and thus a high % of uninsured deposits. The fixed rate assets lost so much value while rates rose, that they had no tangible equity. Thus, the hot money deposits raced out of the bank. Smaller banks typically don't have such a concentration of affluent customers, which means that more of their clientele would be under the threshold for FDIC insurance. Smaller banks probably have a good book of commercial loans which are commonly priced at a variable rate. I am baffled that SVB and FRB did not hedge their fixed rate portfolios with interest rate swaps....Maybe their mind was on staying abreast of the white-hot tech sector instead of wringing their hands about the next Fed rate decision.