4 ms·

Seems like the vast majority of banks avoided this situation, regional or national, so... maybe it's on the banks at some point?

• xen2xen1 3y ago
  I mostly agree, but there were lots of signs the fed ignored and waited too long, and had to do large and sudden hikes. It could have all been less abrupt. They still have done a very good job so far, and it could have been very different.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    > but there were lots of signs the fed ignored and waited too long, and had to do large and sudden hikes. It could have all been less abrupt. I disagree. Yes, there were inflation signs that they didn’t act on, but that’s because the exceptionally sharp and deep recession being over and securely so in unprecedented time wasn’t clear except in retrospect. Fed policy isn’t driven by a unitary mandate.
• ericd 3y ago
  I think this is largely because the Fed quickly set up a massive facility to save the others? Looks like its usage has passed $100B so far: https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/status/1666944000626925568 https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/status/16669440006269255...
  • codyb 3y ago
    After I posted I remembered I knew that, yea that definitely helped! But some of the fault is on the banks as well for not managing interest rate risks well. As Matt Levine pointed out, they haven't had to worry for a decade! SVB's liabilities were also highly concentrated among large uninsured by FDIC accounts that all moved in tandem which didn't help anything.