« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: If SVB is insolvent, so is everyone else - US Treasuries, far from being safe, are the NEW Toxic Security! 

By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 14 Mar 23 4:51 AM | 27 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board
Msg. 40973 of 58621
(This msg. is a reply to 40968 by Fiz)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

fizzy:

Re: “I'm wondering if there are ANY commercial institutions which are still solvent on a mark to market basis. How could there be? Only if they didn't loan anything long term or didn't use any leverage (margin). But that doesn't fit ANY public institution I can think of!”
No. There are none. The reason banking is so popular is due to the [non] miracle of fractional reserve banking. Banks can lend out the vast majority of their deposits, taking IOUs in their stead. If depositors request their money back, the banks don't have it. They MIGHT have the option of calling in the loans, but the main reason depositors request their money en masse is because of poor economic conditions that could cause such loans to be BAD. In other words, if SVB called in its loans, it might reveal how underwater the bank actually is and make matters worse. It's actually much more complicated than that. Today's banks can make loans to just about anyone or any thing... foreign countries like Ukraine, for instance... and use it as a means of collecting interest. Lent money might find its way back into the banks and get lent AGAIN. How sound are such loans? Maybe not very sound at all. But through this process of lending and re-lending, banks could have just one or two percent of the funds their customers deposited.

In the case of SVB, the bank had purchased a large number of low interest bonds. When interest rates rose, the value of those bonds plummeted. When millionaire customers who were aware of this got nervous and started asking for their money back, money at which the bank was leveraged beyond nine to one, the bank had no choice but to sell those underwater bonds. Zimbler asked if he's right in thinking that there's only a loss if one sells. Yes, that's true. But SVB was FORCED to sell in order to get the cash its customers demanded, so the losses became real and the bank consequently failed.








Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: If SVB is insolvent, so is everyone else - US Treasuries, far from being safe, are the NEW Toxic Security!
By: Fiz
in 6TH POPE
Tue, 14 Mar 23 3:54 AM
Msg. 40968 of 58621

Zim: "Am I right in thinking that that is only if one sells?"

I don't think that is how things work in accounting - nor in rational investing. HIDING losses for any of these PUBLIC institutions is, I'm sure, a felony (albeit in a country which no longer prosecutes felonies if you are politically connected enough...like Biden, Clinton, Bush, etc).

You LOSE the value of your investments when their mark to market price goes down — not when you sell. In ALL cases smart money would have not invested before the crash, but waited until after, if at all. A 50% paper loss requires a 100% paper gain...just to get you back to even, and 100% gains are not that easy to come by in conservative circles.

The banks which lent money long term when interest rates were at historic lows (and WAY below real rates which factored in inflation) SCREWED UP MASSIVELY. They GAMBLED that trees grow to the sky...and that
the Fed would never do what it did.

The really spooky thing to ask is what banks, pensions, insurance companies, etc. did NOT make long term loans when mortgages were at 2-4% and Treasuries were below 0.5%? If you lent fixed-rate, long-term on RE you are screwed. If you lent on 10 year Treasuries or blue-chip corporate bonds, you are also screwed.

I'm trying to think how I would find out the amount of such long-term paper losses held at various banks vs. their liquid assets. Maybe there is something I am not properly considering but, at the moment, I'm wondering if there are ANY commercial institutions which are still solvent on a mark to market basis. How could there be? Only if they didn't loan anything long term or didn't use any leverage (margin). But that doesn't fit ANY public institution I can think of!

If you have much money in any smaller banks (which are less likely to be politically connected enough) you might want to rethink that...quickly...before other people start rethinking it! Even below the FDIC insured level, there is massive risk as the FDIC didn't have even 1% of the money it would need to bail out the deposits it has supposedly insured ... and it is a quasi private institution. All this based on the last time I checked. (I actually took the time to call them once, a long time ago, to find out if this was all true...it was...but they told me not to worry because...well, just because!;!)


« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next