4 ms·
SVB was essentially a social-media fueled bank run, and it took out FRC as well. They were both vulnerable to a run in ways that should not be allowed, but the
by PraetorianGourd 3y ago
SVB was essentially a social-media fueled bank run, and it took out FRC as well. They were both vulnerable to a run in ways that should not be allowed, but the fact remains both would be solvent still had the rumor-mill not sunk them.
Instead of fighting for what, in terms of the lost deposits, is a drop in the bucket, how about we fight to again separate investment from commercial banking?
- bagacrap 3y agoSVB initiated its own bank run by selling securities at a loss and announcing a capital raise. Also they did all sorts of dumb stuff like selling their interest rate hedges in early 2022 because they were worried the hedges would impair profits if interest rates happened not to rise. I'm not sure what you're suggesting by separating banking and investing. Banking is about taking money from a bunch of risk averse people and investing it (e.g. by making loans to small businesses) and smoke and mirrors means safe money can be used for risky ventures. It's sort of a necessary way to push society towards taking on more risk. But banks can definitely juice returns by making riskier investments, or by keeping an insufficient capital buffer. That is what happened here and where our regulatory apparatus failed.