Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A global recession is on the horizon - please read OP for mod warning

Options
1201202204206207375

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Spare a thought for the shareholders also.


    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Posts: 551 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hopefully the US government will stick to their guns and refuse to bail out the ultra rich who banked with Silicon Valley Bank.

    Untitled Image Untitled Image




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,398 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Take a breath.

    SVB is not some major retail bank, aka it's not high street, it's venture capital.

    Indeed, only around 5% or so will get their deposits covered by FDIC, that's because most are foreign and/or above the 250k limit. Of those, many are still likely to be covered, it will just take time. There's the possibility that all depositors could be covered (with enough time). The share-holders are last on the list and well, yeah, not good for them

    The main thing is it doesn't seem to be anything systemic.

    As for the "bailout" comments I've already seen. It's worth mentioning that the term can mean several different things, for example, with TARP, the US government used taxpayers money to lend to the banks to cover their intraday needs, the banks paid it back later, with heavy interest, and made a small profit for the taxpayer.

    With SVB, like Lehman, I don't see the US govt doing anything too drastic, as mentioned it's a kick in the teeth for venture capital, but it's not high street.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    I can’t see how it is hard to know what losses the banks are sat on with regards to bonds. The unrealised losses are published in there accounts for anyone to see.

    As for the depositors they will probably still have their cash come Monday when the ‘new bank’ opens and eventually gets taken over by another bank. There is still a lot of liquidity around so it shouldn’t be hard to find a buyer.

    It is the shareholders and owners of the banks issued notes that will loose out. The biggest risk to the banking system is that the rating agencies downgrade banks in a similar position.

    There shouldn’t be to many like svb in Europe as institutional deposit are more or less worthless to a bank’s funding and liquidity under current EBA rules.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    Does that mean UK and Ireland protected? The below doesn't seem to imply such protection....




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    It is not unrealised bond losses that are the problem because a loss is only realised if sold early, although as we have seen with the UK pension funds and SVB they can become a problem very quickly if cash is needed in a hurry.

    The big problem are the assets ( debt ) not on balance sheets that needs to be refinanced at a lot higher cost than even one year ago.

    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    The biggest issue will be that Irish companies will have had a lending facility with SVB and will now no longer have access to be able to draw down loans and will be scrambling to put new credit facilities in place with other banks and if they can’t then they have no access to credit which could result in them going under.

    As for deposits SVB depositors would be covered by deposit guarantee schemes rules in the jurisdiction that the subsidiary bank or branch is set up in (e.g. England). However this will only be up to x amount and may not cover non retail depositors.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    You are looking at 2 different things.

    1) SVB - the issue was a profitability issue where all the bonds were on the balance sheet and unrealised losses reported in their accounts. SVB were unprofitable and making a loss because they were paying depositors more than they were receiving on Bonds. In order to address the issue they tried to raise capital to restructure the balance sheet and this capital call spooked depositors who pulled deposits and caused a run on the bank leading to its collapse.

    2) uk pension funds had bonds post as collateral on loans and as rates rose the value of the bonds fell and resulted in a margin call which meant they needed cash and did so by selling bonds which pushed the yield higher resulting in further margin calls and a need to sell more bonds. The BOE stepped in to break the feedback loop so that the pension funds could arrange to get cash by other means rather than selling bonds.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Fallout from other regions also coming in.


    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Do you notice the one thing they both had in common ?

    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    The Rothschild's getting involved now, sounds serious for just one non retail JV bank doesn't it ?


    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707



    Another bank in the US attracting attention.


    https://twitter.com/mikealfred/status/1634790617627914240



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,398 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Doomsday merchants getting all excited. Will be reminding them of this in a month.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    It is a part of a system which is not healthy at all. Even something which looks small issue at the start has the ability to turn it all upside down. There is a talk about bank runs and if that happens then it become pretty "systemic".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,976 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Anyone got a subscription? Headline not too inspiring!

    https://www.businesspost.ie/news-focus/irelands-e134bn-phantom-exports-could-disappear-at-the-stroke-of-a-pen/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    SVB corporate bonds also crashed unsurprisingly, no idea what the situation is now for those who bought them or how many have been sold. A right can of worms these bonds aren't they ?


    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SteHam




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Why are the bonds a right can of worms? The bonds issued by SVB are no different to shares issued…if it was a G-sib they would be required to issue bonds for TLAC purposes. It’s not the bonds but more the management decisions that caused the collapse. SVB didn’t have to buy long term bonds or if they did they could have hedged the risk but they didn’t hedge or buy shorter dated bonds because they deliberately took on the risk chasing profits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707



    Speculation rising that a bigger bailout might be coming.

    image.png


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03/12/silicon-valley-bank-deposits/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    That is because this is not solvency but rather liquidity crisis. People got spooked and nearly instantly withdrew/transferred ton of money from there and bank was unable to meet demand. That can happen with any bank and once it starts it is hard to put a stop to it. These days one does not even need to queue to make transfer but do it in a few clicks on computer or phone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    It is evident that the bank has collapsed in its current form. In the event a new owner takes over, the government may have to offer assistance to the new owner?

    Currently, the government appears to be contemplating guaranteeing that all depositors are able to get their money back, meaning the government is likely to step in and bail out the depositors.

    It is possible to fall into pitfalls here when covering the losses of depositors of SVB, regardless of how big or small they are. Other banks in danger in the future will become even more dependent on the US government. The United States government is always stepping in and bailing you out, why would you not take risks?

    If it happens, the US government will guarantee losses, there won't be an all-out run on banks, and the crisis will eventually subside We'll have to wait until Monday to find out if other banks are experiencing a similar crisis or if there is something else hidden in the shadows waiting to be exposed?

    Fortunately, it is only a problem with SVB, going to be fixed. It is likely that the government will announce something soon to assure depositors in other banks that their savings and cash flow will not be lost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    SVB invested in bonds, and the depositors got scared when they lost out due to interest rate differences. Personally, I think this is another helping hand for the rich. Even the name of the bank makes it obvious that depositors like very wealthy people corporate people. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707



    Is that not the point though, how do we categorically know at this stage it is only SVB? Hopefully it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Niccolò Machiavelli :

    "To ally with great powers to defeat your neighbour is a strategic trap; if you win, you become the slave of the greater power; if the allied power is defeated, you remain alone and defenceless against the angry neighbour, and you are destroyed." - Niccolò Machiavelli



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    No one categorically knows but you can look at the facts of why 2 banks went under in a week. One wound itself up because it was the crypto bank and as crypto crashed so did its deposit base. The second bank SVB went under because of the risks it took on going long on the yield curve and the fact that tech money started to dry up….the common denominator with both banks is concentration risk.

    I fully expect by lunch time tomorrow we will hear that SVB has been taken over by another bank at a big discount and all depositors will get their cash back. If this happens it should restore confidence to depositors.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    So another bank gone. It does seem to be getting worse. Lets hope it stops here



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,398 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's a part of people who see any negative financial event as a forerunner to whatever financial apocalypse they perpetually think is just around the corner. That's pretty much this thread in a nutshell.



Advertisement
Advertisement