Jump to content

2023 bank failures


Parliament

Recommended Posts

Is this the part where we claim that the FDIC is part of the Dept. of Treasury?  

The close to c-level execs in Austin left SVB two years ago when they saw the signs.  Handful of them left to the exact same mezz capital firm.  Big fucking red flag.  

This will get much more weird before it gets normal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

Is this the part where we claim that the FDIC is part of the Dept. of Treasury?  

The close to c-level execs in Austin left SVB two years ago when they saw the signs.  Handful of them left to the exact same mezz capital firm.  Big fucking red flag.  

This will get much more weird before it gets normal.  

Don't know any details, but I would bet that you know things.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno shit.  But I bet dollars to donuts you know the same mezz firm I do.  These guys had nothing to with the current shitshow, but they got outta dodge long before because they were honest guys.  I didn't realize what they were running from until now.  You probably know one of the guys, played OL for UT.  He knew something was rotten in Denmark and they didn't listen.  He's arguably the most honest guy I know.  When assholes jump ship, that's one thing.  When guys like this leave, that's a wholly different disaster incoming...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Nobody is talking about a bailout. Not even Ackman. Arranging a buyer isn’t a bailout. 

It has literally been mentioned many times in this thread. Like, the word bailout appears over a dozen times. And yes, Ackman is talking about a bailout when he is asking the government "to guarantee all SVB deposits"

Come the fuck on. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pantone159 said:

But if they do indeed hold them to maturity then they will in fact get paid in full, and the market price does not matter, or whether the interest rate changes or not. Works until a bank run forces you to sell.

 

 No, they will get paid par.  They likely bought a lot of those bonds over par and sold them below.   You’re only getting 100 cents on the dollar at maturity.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension is fundamental 

Quote

The gov’t has about 48 hours to fix a-soon-to-be-irreversible mistake. By allowing @SVB_Financial to fail without protecting all depositors, the world has woken up to what an uninsured deposit is — an unsecured illiquid claim on a failed bank. Absent @jpmorgan @citi or @BankofAmerica acquiring SVB before the open on Monday, a prospect I believe to be unlikely, or the gov’t guaranteeing all of SVB’s deposits, the giant sucking sound you will hear will be the withdrawal of substantially all uninsured deposits from all but the ‘systemically important banks’ (SIBs)

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

 No, they will get paid par.  They likely bought a lot of those bonds over par and sold them below.   You’re only getting 100 cents on the dollar at maturity.  

His hypothetical was holding them to maturity...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It has literally been mentioned many times in this thread. Like, the word bailout appears over a dozen times. And yes, Ackman is talking about a bailout when he is asking the government "to guarantee all SVB deposits"

Come the fuck on. 

To my earlier question, it seems that guaranteeing deposits would not necessarily put much or any federal cash on the table, ease the concerns of the depositors and slow the withdrawal rate (maybe even by a temporary partial freeze condition on the guarantee) while a buyer(s) could be found by the bank.

There's interventions and bailout interventions.  I'm not arguing that anyone should necessarily be made whole, especially not equity holders, and maybe not even depositors, but it seems like something a bit more proactive could have been done to avoid what did happen.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Don't know any details, but I would bet that you know things.

He doesn’t know shit. SBV was a darling before they reported the $1.8B loss on sold securities. And really up until Wednesday. 2 years ago we were still in a very low interest rate environment with no expectation of increasing to the level we did. Bankers leave for mezz funds and PE funds all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It has literally been mentioned many times in this thread. Like, the word bailout appears over a dozen times. And yes, Ackman is talking about a bailout when he is asking the government "to guarantee all SVB deposits"

Come the fuck on. 

Ackman has stated profusely he wants a buyer to be arranged before the markets open Monday. That’s not a bailout. Bailout is a term thrown around by populist know-nothings here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chopper said:

LOL you keep saying that they'll be made whole as if, if you keep saying it, it'll come true.

Not trying to brag at all but I have more than enough liquid assets to be in the category of those who you (and the dolt longing for freshman year) seem to think want "blood" and to fight a "class war" simply because we don't believe the government should make people whole when they've lost money due to their own, poor financial decisions. I am far from a savvy investor but when I put my money in a bank and when I invested it with a financial advisor, the first question I asked was about the insurance on the account, and how that impacted my investment. It's why I have multiple banks, multiple investment vehicles and multiple accounts. For someone with 10x or 100x millions more than I, if they didn't understand the risks, or weren't willing to take the time to find out, then hiring a financial advisor or company controller should have been step 1.  Limiting your risk is only as complicated as you want to make it.

I’m curious, what exactly does the process of securing your deposits look like for the size companies we are talking about here that have been hit the hardest. Roku is sitting on $2B+ in cash and has expenses in excess of $1M a day, what is the most reasonable way for them to secure those deposits daily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you constantly refer to someone you have on ignore?  It's fascinating.  

Anyway, it's obviously 20/20 hindsight.  But some serious guys left there a few years ago when shit started going sideways.  That's all.  This thing is gonna take a few years to unpack though, this got extra weird in a hurry.  They cancelled their coke 'n hookers party for SxSW so we're all losers in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

 No, they will get paid par.  They likely bought a lot of those bonds over par and sold them below.   You’re only getting 100 cents on the dollar at maturity.  

Y’all are talking past each other. He didn’t say anything incorrect. 

53 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Reading comprehension is fundamental 

 

Lol. Ackman isn’t calling for a bailout. He’s calling for government intervention to arrange a new bank holding company owner, and fast. Otherwise there’ll be a an outflow of deposits from regionals to money centers. This is not a bailout in the slightest. You should take a break from posting about business. 

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To my earlier question, it seems that guaranteeing deposits would not necessarily put much or any federal cash on the table, ease the concerns of the depositors and slow the withdrawal rate (maybe even by a temporary partial freeze condition on the guarantee) while a buyer(s) could be found by the bank.

There's interventions and bailout interventions.  I'm not arguing that anyone should necessarily be made whole, especially not equity holders, and maybe not even depositors, but it seems like something a bit more proactive could have been done to avoid what did happen.

Correct. Ackman isn’t calling for a bailout. He’s calling for government intervention to facilitate a sale. This isn’t difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

How do you constantly refer to someone you have on ignore?  It's fascinating.  

Anyway, it's obviously 20/20 hindsight.  But some serious guys left there a few years ago when shit started going sideways.  That's all.  This thing is gonna take a few years to unpack though, this got extra weird in a hurry.  They cancelled their coke 'n hookers party for SxSW so we're all losers in that regard.

I actually opened this post because I’m piqued by your constant need for attention. First, when posters quote you, I am subject to your blather. Second, 2 years ago, and 1 week ago, this was the most respected bank around. Look at their fucking stock price history. These guys didn’t discover anything 2 years ago that they didn’t know doing a modicum of diligence in coming to the bank in the first place. Your “a-ha” moment is more needless hot air designed to prop up purported inside knowledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit man, I wish it was my "ah-hah" moment so i coulda made a few bucks on it.  As I said, all 20/20 hindsight.  Start another thread about my real name or something.  Otherwise it's just a constant cycle of you posting about how you have my posts on ignore.  Getting weird, sweetheart ;)    Not quite SVB, but odd.  

On topic though, I am curious what's gonna happen with their real estate plays.  They've got some prime spots on long-term leases.  Whole other animal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Y’all are talking past each other. He didn’t say anything incorrect. 

Lol. Ackman isn’t calling for a bailout. He’s calling for government intervention to arrange a new bank holding company owner, and fast. Otherwise there’ll be a an outflow of deposits from regionals to money centers. This is not a bailout in the slightest. You should take a break from posting about business. 

Correct. Ackman isn’t calling for a bailout. He’s calling for government intervention to facilitate a sale. This isn’t difficult. 

Bullshit. He is absolutely calling for a bailout. He wishes that a buyer had appeared earlier, that the government had assisted I finding a buyer and provided a backstop (read bailout) to entice a buyer and buy time, but it didn't, so now he says the only option is the government guaranteeing deposits. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

To my earlier question, it seems that guaranteeing deposits would not necessarily put much or any federal cash on the table, ease the concerns of the depositors and slow the withdrawal rate (maybe even by a temporary partial freeze condition on the guarantee) while a buyer(s) could be found by the bank.

There's interventions and bailout interventions.  I'm not arguing that anyone should necessarily be made whole, especially not equity holders, and maybe not even depositors, but it seems like something a bit more proactive could have been done to avoid what did happen.

None of that is responsive to what I wrote. Sure, there are other government interventions short of a bailout. But any sort of government guarantee (which is what Ackman is begging for) is a fucking bailout. Perhaps you could arrange a guarantee that results relatively minimal direct tax payer in intervention, but don't fucking pretend that means 0 or that minimal for federal government isn't still a fuck ton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

None of that is responsive to what I wrote. Sure, there are other government interventions short of a bailout. But any sort of government guarantee (which is what Ackman is begging for) is a fucking bailout. Perhaps you could arrange a guarantee that results relatively minimal direct tax payer in intervention, but don't fucking pretend that means 0 or that minimal for federal government isn't still a fuck ton. 

It wasn't really intended to be a response, but more an elaboration/further question/thinking aloud.

As I understand this, it was a timing problem in that if depositors withdrew X in Y interval, potential or actual disaster.

If the government can turn X into a fraction of X and extend interval Y, disaster avoided.  Guaranteeing deposits doesn't necessarily mean paying them out, even partially.  It seems reasonably likely that if withdrawals could have been slowed a bit and reduced in magnitude, they'd have gotten a buyer that could make the depositors whole (so the guarantee doesn't come to pass), and other, more deserving stakeholders, ie equity, take the haircut.

I'm not a fan of bailouts in any way shape or form.  I'm not advocating that depositors necessarily be made whole, although they are relative innocents compared to shareholders/directors/officers that took dumb risks or did other silly things.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I don't know the details, but it really seems dumb that there wasn't liquidity provided to the bank earlier this week.

Plenty of assets.  Management arrogance?  The window is almost always open.  We will learn more.

They (the Fed) tried to find a buyer but hadn't been able to line one up before Friday.

40 minutes ago, Brew said:

I’m curious, what exactly does the process of securing your deposits look like for the size companies we are talking about here that have been hit the hardest. Roku is sitting on $2B+ in cash and has expenses in excess of $1M a day, what is the most reasonable way for them to secure those deposits daily?

Roku, per the article I read, had 25% of their cash on hand at SVB. Also according to the article I read while it's a problem for them, they're able to deal.

However, the FDIC coverage limits of $250k per eligible account are an incentive for people or businesses with a lot of cash on hand to spread it around among several or many banks. The incentive is the solution. That seems rare but it's the fact in this circumstance.

What's rare is for businesses with a lot of cash on hand to put all into one bank. But that's the way it was done in Silicon Valley, which used political muscle to ensure that the bank of their choice could gamble it away while the VC crowd mandated the funds go to the very same bank.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It wasn't really intended to be a response, but more an elaboration/further question/thinking aloud.

As I understand this, it was a timing problem in that if depositors withdrew X in Y interval, potential disaster.

If the government can turn X into a fraction of X and extend interval Y, disaster avoided.  Guaranteeing deposits doesn't necessarily mean paying them out.  It seems reasonably likely that if withdrawals could have been slowed a bit and reduced in magnitude, they'd have gotten a buyer that could make the depositors whole (so the guarantee doesn't come to pass), and other, more deserving stakeholders, ie equity, take the haircut.

Regardless of whether cash trades hands, a guarantee is a liability on the government books, and thus a tax payer bailout. Again, there may be ways to minimize the overall costs. But it is never going to be 0. 

And, without a government guarantee, the equity holders will take the haircut and the depositors will likely be made whole. So why put government funds at risk at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, is that kind of thing regarded like a preference in bankruptcy, or a reorganization bonus?

It stinks to high heaven, but a reorg bonus does make a certain amount of sense.

The article is a bit regarded I think? It discusses the bank paying annual bonuses of 1.5x regular annual salary as per a pre-arranged schedule, as well as a payment from FDIC if the same employees will stay around for 45 days to help clean things up. The thing is I've read small businesses with accounts at SVB who attempted to transfer funds on Thursday only for SVB to fail to make the wire transfer.

Edited by Chopper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Bullshit. He is absolutely calling for a bailout. He wishes that a buyer had appeared earlier, that the government had assisted I finding a buyer and provided a backstop (read bailout) to entice a buyer and buy time, but it didn't, so now he says the only option is the government guaranteeing deposits. 

He is most certainly not. It’s too late, is his point, and he went to great lengths to explain why a govt guarantee of depositor funds would’ve been much less calamitous that what will ensue going forward with respect to banks across the country. Learn how to read and interpret data, extending to your nonsense on the value of renewables relative to natural gas in electricity generation. You’re so wrong in most of your posts it’s worthless to even engage you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's her next job?

 

Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Chief Investment Officer, SVB Private

Shannon Saccocia serves as Chief Investment Officer at SVB Private, and is responsible for setting the overall investment strategy for the firm. She oversees the asset allocation, research, portfolio management, external manager search and selection, portfolio implementation, trading, and investment risk management functions.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

He is most certainly not. It’s too late, is his point, and he went to great lengths to explain why a govt guarantee of depositor funds would’ve been much less calamitous that what will ensue going forward with respect to banks across the country. Learn how to read and interpret data, extending to your nonsense on the value of renewables relative to natural gas in electricity generation. You’re so wrong in most of your posts it’s worthless to even engage you. 

You were hilariously wrong in that thread (as my numerous sources proved) and in this thread. But sure, continue to insist the guy asking for a federal guarantee isnt asking for a bailout. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Where's her next job?

 

Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Chief Investment Officer, SVB Private

Shannon Saccocia serves as Chief Investment Officer at SVB Private, and is responsible for setting the overall investment strategy for the firm. She oversees the asset allocation, research, portfolio management, external manager search and selection, portfolio implementation, trading, and investment risk management functions.

She’ll be fine. She had nothing to do with it. She’s a wealth management person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Where's her next job?

 

Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Shannon Saccocia, CFA, CIMA®
Chief Investment Officer, SVB Private

Shannon Saccocia serves as Chief Investment Officer at SVB Private, and is responsible for setting the overall investment strategy for the firm. She oversees the asset allocation, research, portfolio management, external manager search and selection, portfolio implementation, trading, and investment risk management functions.

Running the Aggy endowment?

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You were hilariously wrong in that thread (as my numerous sources proved) and in this thread. But sure, continue to insist the guy asking for a federal guarantee isnt asking for a bailout. 

Maybe he just means the govt is going to take a dump in a box

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You were hilariously wrong in that thread (as my numerous sources proved) and in this thread. But sure, continue to insist the guy asking for a federal guarantee isnt asking for a bailout. 

You’re hilariously wrong in all things energy that I don’t engage. I could destroy your entire little surly message board fiefdom there if I wanted, but to what end. You’re a major part of the ‘energy transition’, which is a farcical term, problem. You won’t be swayed.  Tell you what, put your money where your mouth is and invest in renewables.  And then let’s re-convene in 5 years.

5:16 pm today, which I just read above, Ackman finally proposes a go-forward plan. And it still isn’t a bailout. Let me ask you this: do you think TARP was a bailout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Maybe he just means the govt is going to take a dump in a box

That fucking idiot, and most people here, have no concept of where the FDIC obtains its funding. 

Edited by Porterhouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

She’ll be fine. She had nothing to do with it. She’s a wealth management person. 

Yeah, it took me a second to catch that. I was curious what politicians had invested in the bank and in the process came across a company document that she had written.

Question for bankers, is it common for the Chief Risk Officer to live in a location other than headquarters?

Kim Olson is Chief Risk Officer for SVB. She is responsible for developing and overseeing SVB’s strategy and framework for global risk management and compliance, including regulatory transformation and relations with financial regulators. Kim is also a member of the company’s executive committee.  

Kim leads SVB’s Risk Management division which is charged with providing independent review and effective challenge of and guidance for managing all risk types (including credit, market, liquidity, model, operational, compliance, and enterprise), and ensuring compliance with standards and regulatory expectations. The team is focused on fostering a strong culture of risk awareness across the company to enable sound and sustainable growth while serving the needs of SVB clients and partners. 

Kim brings to her role deep risk management, risk transformation, and prudential regulation and bank supervision expertise from 30 years in the financial services industry. Before joining SVB in late 2022, Kim served as Chief Risk Officer for SMBC in the Americas, and an Executive Officer of SMBC and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group. Prior to that, she had senior roles leading critical risk management functions, professional services engagements, and regulatory / risk policy at AIG, Deloitte, Deutsche Bank, and Fitch Ratings. She began her career at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where over a ten-year period she held a variety of increasingly senior positions in banking supervision, including a two-year secondment to the Basel Secretariat on Banking Supervision at the Bank for International Settlements to develop international capital rules.

Kim holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University and a bachelor’s degree in political science, magna cum laude, from Santa Clara University; there, she was also awarded Phi Beta Kappa and the national Harry S. Truman Scholarship.

Kim is based in New York. When she is not working, she enjoys spending time with her husband and three daughters, attending performing arts events of all kinds, and volunteering to promote nature conservancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

By what mandate does the FDIC have the authority to make whole amounts above the insurance limit?

Wrong question. Make it more simple. Answer what I hinted at earlier: how does the FDIC receive its funding?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Porterhouse said:

Wrong question. Make it more simple. Answer what I hinted at earlier: how does the FDIC receive its funding?  

I assume from premiums. Does that mean they can spend it however they want? What if they make SVB whole and there are more runs? Are they going to make every failed bank whole? What happens when they are tapped out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Yeah, it took me a second to catch that. I was curious what politicians had invested in the bank and in the process came across a company document that she had written.

Question for bankers, is it common for the Chief Risk Officer to live in a location other than headquarters?

Kim Olson is Chief Risk Officer for SVB. She is responsible for developing and overseeing SVB’s strategy and framework for global risk management and compliance, including regulatory transformation and relations with financial regulators. Kim is also a member of the company’s executive committee.  

Kim leads SVB’s Risk Management division which is charged with providing independent review and effective challenge of and guidance for managing all risk types (including credit, market, liquidity, model, operational, compliance, and enterprise), and ensuring compliance with standards and regulatory expectations. The team is focused on fostering a strong culture of risk awareness across the company to enable sound and sustainable growth while serving the needs of SVB clients and partners. 

Kim brings to her role deep risk management, risk transformation, and prudential regulation and bank supervision expertise from 30 years in the financial services industry. Before joining SVB in late 2022, Kim served as Chief Risk Officer for SMBC in the Americas, and an Executive Officer of SMBC and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group. Prior to that, she had senior roles leading critical risk management functions, professional services engagements, and regulatory / risk policy at AIG, Deloitte, Deutsche Bank, and Fitch Ratings. She began her career at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where over a ten-year period she held a variety of increasingly senior positions in banking supervision, including a two-year secondment to the Basel Secretariat on Banking Supervision at the Bank for International Settlements to develop international capital rules.

Kim holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University and a bachelor’s degree in political science, magna cum laude, from Santa Clara University; there, she was also awarded Phi Beta Kappa and the national Harry S. Truman Scholarship.

Kim is based in New York. When she is not working, she enjoys spending time with her husband and three daughters, attending performing arts events of all kinds, and volunteering to promote nature conservancy.

 Not at all. Unless she’s the CRO of SVB Private, which still wouldn’t mKe sense, her ass needs to be in San Jose at all times.  Not flying cross country every Monday morning and Friday afternoon - all times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Wrong question. Make it more simple. Answer what I hinted at earlier: how does the FDIC receive its funding?  

I was hearing something from a financial services-connected friend in DC about some emergency legislation being discussed to deal with the insurance cap with respect to this situation.  That sounds like a long-shot to me.

But who knows?  If this is truly going to be a systemic issue, it might make sense to cut it off before it goes further.

Edited by DalTxHornFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blacklab changed the title to 2023 bank failures

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...