3 ms·
It does not follow from "Banks are extremely leveraged by their nature" that fluctuations in its asset value are meaningless. It is, right up until it isn't, an
by jerf 3y ago
It does not follow from "Banks are extremely leveraged by their nature" that fluctuations in its asset value are meaningless. It is, right up until it isn't, and then it suddenly means everything. Which means it isn't meaningless at all.
It's not like we live in a world where we've been banking for thousands of years without this ever being a problem. It was most recently a problem this year, and if your memory is fuzzy, it wasn't just Silicon Valley Bank. If you're going to excuse that away, then it was most recently a catastrophic problem in 2008, which isn't exactly "hasn't been a problem since the Roman empire" or anything. And if you're going to make excuses for the Global Financial Crisis and how that doesn't actually matter and doesn't need to be incorporated into anyone's models of how banks work, well, our world views are irreconcilably different. I can promise you the banks don't believe it's irrelevant.
- dmoy 3y agoNote GP didn't say "fluctuations in its asset value are meaningless", they said "Comparing the balance sheet fluctuations of a bank to its market cap is meaningless". For example US Bank has $50B market cap, $500B deposits, and closer to $700B total assets.