Author Topic: Money/inflation, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar, BTC, crypto, Gold  (Read 671548 times)


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
linkages



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Bodies now washing up on the shore
« Reply #2453 on: March 11, 2023, 06:57:38 PM »
There’s nothing like a bank panic to make for a relaxing weekend. Markets took another header on Friday, as regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the 16th largest U.S. bank and the biggest to fail since the 2008 crisis. This came days after Silvergate Capital announced it is liquidating its bank. Cracks in the financial system emerge whenever interest rates rise quickly after an easy-credit mania, and the surprise is that it took so long.

***
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took over SVB on Friday and may have to collect more bodies by the time the Federal Reserve is done correcting its easy-money mistakes. At least that seems to be the fear of investors, judging by the sharp selloff in regional bank stocks like First Republic Bank (-14.8%) and PacWest Bancorp (-37.9%).


SVB’s customers include leading venture-capital firms and tech startups, including some Chinese firms that need offshore accounts to raise foreign capital. San Diego-based Silvergate is smaller but grew in recent years by serving crypto companies.

What the two have in common is that they lacked diverse deposit bases and fell victim of a classic banking strategy of borrowing short and lending long. Although their liabilities were backed by putatively safe assets like Treasury bonds, when interest rates rise the bonds that banks hold lose value. They have to be held to maturity or incur losses when sold.

SVB and Silvergate incurred steep losses as they sold bonds to compensate for fleeing deposits. A regulatory crackdown on crypto also spurred Silvergate customers to bail, sticking it with even bigger losses.

Silvergate on Wednesday said it would liquidate “in light of recent industry and regulatory developments.” Its crypto ties may have made it too politically toxic for another bank to take over. While regulators will surely flog Silvergate’s failure as a warning not to serve the crypto industry, its concentrated deposit base was the main cause of its demise.

SVB’s business model was more durable but still vulnerable to market shocks. Rising interest rates have made it hard for its startup clients to raise fresh equity. As its customers drew down deposits, SVB had to sell bonds at a loss. SVB disclosed this week that it had lost $1.8 billion on securities sales and would need to raise $2.25 billion in equity.

This stoked fears of insolvency, which caused customers and investors to bolt. It was reportedly searching for a buyer on Friday, and we hope regulators didn’t pre-empt potential private investors by closing SVB so quickly on the same day.

Bank of America and J.P. Morgan rescued smaller banks during the 2008 crisis. But banks may be reluctant to do that again since regulators last time punished them for the sins of their foster children. The takeover of SVB will presumably cost the FDIC money to repay insured depositors.

But if SVB was doomed, it is better to let it fail than have the government bail it out, despite what one hedge-fund lord suggested this week. Didn’t we learn from the 2008 crisis that the feds’ rescue of Bear Stearns encouraged everyone to believe that Lehman Brothers would be rescued too?

There doesn’t appear to be any obvious systemic risk to the financial system from the SVB and Silvergate failures, and market discipline needs to prevail unless there is danger of a larger financial breakdown. SVB investors and customers benefited from the government’s easy money. Why should they also benefit from a government lifeline after taking risks with that easy money?

***
This week’s bank failures are another painful lesson in the costs of a credit mania fed by bad monetary policy. The reckoning always arrives when the Fed has to correct its mistakes. That was the story of 2008, and it’s the eternal lesson that economic historian Charles Kindleberger taught in “Manias, Panics, and Crashes.” We saw the first signs of panic in last year’s crypto crash and the liquidity squeeze at British pension funds.

Now it’s hit the U.S. financial system, and there are likely to be more casualties. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Friday that the U.S. banking system “remains resilient,” but that’s what Fed officials Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner thought before the 2008 panic.

While big banks today are much better capitalized than before the 2008 financial crisis, some regional and small banks with less diverse deposit bases may be vulnerable to shocks. Some may be over-exposed to industries such as commercial real estate that are under stress. The Fed will have to be careful as it continues its anti-inflation campaign.

But nobody, least of all central bank oracles, should be surprised that there are now bodies washing up on shore as the tide goes out. Investors will have to brace for what could be some heavy weather ahead.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2023, 05:49:21 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Gov. Noem on Tucker
« Reply #2454 on: March 12, 2023, 09:29:58 AM »
I think it was Friday night when there was a very interesting segment with Gov. Kristi Noem.  If someone could find it well worth posting here.

I had diminished hopes for her after she waffled in the face of transgender pressure a while back, but she was quite good here.

The gist of it was that there was a bill sent to her desk updating the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code-- essentially the law of contracts.  We studied it in law school.  Very important stuff.  Each state has its own, but the gist is that they should be in harmony with each other.) laws for her state.  Over 100 very technical pages-- the sort of thing that aides and lobbyists do the real work in writing it.

Because she/her people actually read the damn thing they caught language that in effect would have banned any digital currency that was not issued by the government e.g. Bitcoin!!!  Therefore, she vetoed it.

Apparently, this skullduggery is afoot in the UCC updates in many states.  Let's see if we can catch this and report here.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Bodies now washing up on the shore
« Reply #2456 on: March 12, 2023, 01:29:08 PM »
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1634944482352463872

 :-D  :-D  :-D

There’s nothing like a bank panic to make for a relaxing weekend. Markets took another header on Friday, as regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the 16th largest U.S. bank and the biggest to fail since the 2008 crisis. This came days after Silvergate Capital announced it is liquidating its bank. Cracks in the financial system emerge whenever interest rates rise quickly after an easy-credit mania, and the surprise is that it took so long.

***
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took over SVB on Friday and may have to collect more bodies by the time the Federal Reserve is done correcting its easy-money mistakes. At least that seems to be the fear of investors, judging by the sharp selloff in regional bank stocks like First Republic Bank (-14.8%) and PacWest Bancorp (-37.9%).

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
The White House Wants the Power to Ban TikTok


SUBSCRIBE
SVB’s customers include leading venture-capital firms and tech startups, including some Chinese firms that need offshore accounts to raise foreign capital. San Diego-based Silvergate is smaller but grew in recent years by serving crypto companies.

What the two have in common is that they lacked diverse deposit bases and fell victim of a classic banking strategy of borrowing short and lending long. Although their liabilities were backed by putatively safe assets like Treasury bonds, when interest rates rise the bonds that banks hold lose value. They have to be held to maturity or incur losses when sold.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.


Preview

Subscribed
SVB and Silvergate incurred steep losses as they sold bonds to compensate for fleeing deposits. A regulatory crackdown on crypto also spurred Silvergate customers to bail, sticking it with even bigger losses.

Silvergate on Wednesday said it would liquidate “in light of recent industry and regulatory developments.” Its crypto ties may have made it too politically toxic for another bank to take over. While regulators will surely flog Silvergate’s failure as a warning not to serve the crypto industry, its concentrated deposit base was the main cause of its demise.

SVB’s business model was more durable but still vulnerable to market shocks. Rising interest rates have made it hard for its startup clients to raise fresh equity. As its customers drew down deposits, SVB had to sell bonds at a loss. SVB disclosed this week that it had lost $1.8 billion on securities sales and would need to raise $2.25 billion in equity.

This stoked fears of insolvency, which caused customers and investors to bolt. It was reportedly searching for a buyer on Friday, and we hope regulators didn’t pre-empt potential private investors by closing SVB so quickly on the same day.

Bank of America and J.P. Morgan rescued smaller banks during the 2008 crisis. But banks may be reluctant to do that again since regulators last time punished them for the sins of their foster children. The takeover of SVB will presumably cost the FDIC money to repay insured depositors.

But if SVB was doomed, it is better to let it fail than have the government bail it out, despite what one hedge-fund lord suggested this week. Didn’t we learn from the 2008 crisis that the feds’ rescue of Bear Stearns encouraged everyone to believe that Lehman Brothers would be rescued too?

There doesn’t appear to be any obvious systemic risk to the financial system from the SVB and Silvergate failures, and market discipline needs to prevail unless there is danger of a larger financial breakdown. SVB investors and customers benefited from the government’s easy money. Why should they also benefit from a government lifeline after taking risks with that easy money?

***
This week’s bank failures are another painful lesson in the costs of a credit mania fed by bad monetary policy. The reckoning always arrives when the Fed has to correct its mistakes. That was the story of 2008, and it’s the eternal lesson that economic historian Charles Kindleberger taught in “Manias, Panics, and Crashes.” We saw the first signs of panic in last year’s crypto crash and the liquidity squeeze at British pension funds.

Now it’s hit the U.S. financial system, and there are likely to be more casualties. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Friday that the U.S. banking system “remains resilient,” but that’s what Fed officials Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner thought before the 2008 panic.

While big banks today are much better capitalized than before the 2008 financial crisis, some regional and small banks with less diverse deposit bases may be vulnerable to shocks. Some may be over-exposed to industries such as commercial real estate that are under stress. The Fed will have to be careful as it continues its anti-inflation campaign.

But nobody, least of all central bank oracles, should be surprised that there are now bodies washing up on shore as the tide goes out. Investors will have to brace for what could be some heavy weather ahead.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Page does not exist (anymore?)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
"The White House Wants the Power to Ban TikTok".
(WSJ, from the article promoting a different article)

    - Yes.  There are rules of free trade (government, keep your hands off) and then there are exceptions for trade that benefits regimes like China.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
I have mentioned being befuddled by BTC's sharp decline in the presence of high inflation.  Yes, interest rate increases no doubt had something to do with it, but still this seemed contrary to the BTC hypothesis.

Today, with bank runs in the air, it is up something like 17% last I looked.


VIX up very sharply as well.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Biden saved the world
« Reply #2462 on: March 13, 2023, 09:14:21 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWaIpB-TePI

fire the bankers and it is
all trump's fault

thanks to me [joe] you are all safe!

don't know how much of this is political
versus good policy

would live Larry Kuds opinion on this!

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/wall-street-not-taxpayers-will-pay-for-the-svb-and-signature-deposit-relief-plans-.html


 


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Signature bank
« Reply #2463 on: March 13, 2023, 09:32:00 AM »
was not FDIC insured

so government can simply transfer funds to another bank
that has FDIC and viola - problem goes away - just like that!

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/what-to-know-about-fdic-coverage-after-svb-signature-bank-failures.html

magic!

did not Yellen state Friday the Fed would not step in ?

a lot of Dem donors must have called in over the wknd

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Signature bank
« Reply #2464 on: March 13, 2023, 09:44:19 AM »
was not FDIC insured

so government can simply transfer funds to another bank
that has FDIC and viola - problem goes away - just like that!

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/what-to-know-about-fdic-coverage-after-svb-signature-bank-failures.html

magic!

did not Yellen state Friday the Fed would not step in ?

a lot of Dem donors must have called in over the wknd

Exactly!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Kudlow's opinion - responding to my request for opinion
« Reply #2465 on: March 13, 2023, 11:15:36 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2023/03/13/carney-kudlow-bailout-could-deepen-panic/

another point brought up

Biden Powell more likely as cause

whenever Biden comes out and blames others you know he knows he is lying to cover his own tuckus
« Last Edit: March 13, 2023, 11:19:19 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
CCP:  Thank you for the Tucker-Noem clip.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Kim Dotcom on dedollarization
« Reply #2468 on: March 13, 2023, 05:36:38 PM »
Kim Dotcom
@kimdotcom
You’re witnessing the accelerated fall of an empire. This year expect major escalation with Russia and China for driving global de-dollarization. When the US can no longer fund its debt with money printing it will collapse under the weight of its current debt. It’s happening now.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: BTC 25.2K is the next resistance, if we cross that...30K in coming. The 25.2K line is formidable.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF on SVB
« Reply #2470 on: March 14, 2023, 11:07:51 AM »


March 14, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
After Silicon Valley Bank
The tech industry is key to the future of the U.S. economy.
By: Antonia Colibasanu
When I wrote in January that one of the major trends for the next few years would be how the tech industry restructures itself, I did not expect to be writing about the subject again so soon. Last Friday, U.S. regulators closed California-based Silicon Valley Bank, which specialized in lending to technology companies. It was the largest American bank failure since 2008. Two days later, authorities also took over New York-based Signature Bank, which had many clients involved in cryptocurrencies and was considered likely to suffer a similar failure to SVB. Another lender to the crypto industry, Silvergate Bank, also failed last week.

Investors and tech executives everywhere are scouring for the next weak point. U.S. and European markets as well as bank stocks were down on Monday, while traders shifted into sovereign bonds. U.S. officials’ assurances that SVB’s depositors will be repaid in full helped ensure things didn’t get worse.

There are several reasons for the market reaction. First, investors expect the U.S. Federal Reserve to pause rate hikes in an attempt to ensure there’s enough liquidity in the market. Second, the latest stress tests of the largest banks and financial institutions in the U.S. showed that all of them would survive a deep recession and significant drop in unemployment. Third, and likely most important, the cause of the bank failures lies in the tech sector and not in the way the financial markets work.

Silicon Valley Bank had purchased billions of dollars in bonds in recent years, using customer deposits in the same way that a traditional bank would. Bonds are generally a safe place for a financial institution to park its money. However, the value of the bonds plummeted as the Fed aggressively hiked interest rates. Normally, this isn’t an issue; banks typically hold on to bonds for a long time – unless they need to sell them.

SVB’s customers were primarily startups and other tech firms that had become increasingly cash-strapped in the past year. Venture capital funding was drying up, and companies were unable to obtain additional rounds of funding for unprofitable businesses, forcing them to rely on their existing funds, which were frequently deposited with Silicon Valley Bank.

As a result, SVB’s customers began withdrawing their deposits. This wasn't a big deal at first, but the higher the withdrawals, the more the bank needed to sell its own assets to meet the requests of its customers. As rumors spread about the bank needing to sell assets, businesses and wealthy tech workers became concerned about the potential for a bank failure. Their deposits may or may not have exceeded the $250,000 government limit on deposit insurance, but amid heightened market uncertainty since last year, they became anxious and rushed to cash out.

To keep pace with withdrawals, SVB sold off bonds at a loss until it couldn’t any longer. The bank tried to raise additional capital but was unsuccessful. Regulators had no choice but to seize the bank to protect its remaining assets and deposits.

There are at least two problems remaining with Silicon Valley Bank. First is the bank’s deposits. Most of them were uninsured – a unique feature of SVB, considering that the bank’s customers were largely startups and wealthy tech workers. The U.S. Treasury Department announced Sunday evening that federal regulators will protect all deposits at SVB, including those that wouldn’t normally have been covered by federal deposit insurance. This is an exceptionally rare move. It was taken not because the authorities needed to calm the general public about the potential for a financial crisis, but because of the risk of contagion in the tech sector specifically. SVB was unique in that it almost exclusively served the tech world and venture capital-backed companies – a sector that was hit hard last year. Tens of thousands of tech employees lost their jobs in 2022. Making sure that SVB customers can access their money means making sure tech companies can meet payroll and office expenses – in other words, making sure more layoffs are avoided. The tech industry is key to the future of the U.S. economy, and confidence in it needs to be secured.

Businesses with Ties to Silicon Valley Bank
(click to enlarge)

The second remaining problem is international exposure. SVB was at the heart of an industry that benefited from relatively stable global markets and built its supply chains on cheap labor. More than any other businesses, tech companies operate in an effectively borderless world. As a result, firms around the globe are exposed to SVB. The model that underpinned all these companies is no longer viable. Reliable cheap labor and low interest rates are no longer available. Instead, interest rates are rising and the global economic war is fueling uncertainty and anxiety. The appetite to invest in new ideas is diminishing. This, even more than the failure of SVB and other tech-centered banks, is the key challenge for a sector in need of reinvention.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Very good bill from Majority Whip Emmer
« Reply #2472 on: March 15, 2023, 10:14:45 AM »
*For all press release inquiries, please reach out to Theresa Meyer (Theresa.Meyer@mail.house.gov)
Emmer Leads Effort to Squash Financial Surveillance State Initiatives
February 23, 2023

Washington, D.C. – This week, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (MN-06) introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act to halt efforts of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) that strips Americans of their right to financial privacy.

The bill also holds the Federal Reserve’s CBDC research and development programs accountable to the American people. The bill was co-sponsored by Republican colleagues Representatives French Hill (AR-02), Warren Davidson (OH-08), Mike Flood (NE-01), Byron Donalds (FL-19), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Andy Biggs (AR-05), Young Kim (CA-40), Ralph Norman (SC-05) and Barry Loudermilk (GA-11).

“Any digital version of the dollar must uphold our American values of privacy, individual sovereignty and free market competitiveness,” Emmer said. “Anything less opens the door to the development of a dangerous surveillance tool.”

“After all, America remains a technological leader not because we force innovations to adopt our values under regulatory duress, but because we allow technology that holds these values at their core to flourish,” concluded Emmer.

Rep. Hill said, “As Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Inclusion, it is my top priority to protect people’s privacy and their data. When it comes to consideration and design of any possible U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the federal government cannot and does not have the authority to issue a CBDC directly to individuals without explicit Congressional approval. I am proud to co-sponsor the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, led by my colleague, Whip Emmer, which will protect the financial privacy of individuals, their civil liberties, and stop efforts of federal overreach to surveil Americans.”
“The Fed must focus on its dual mandate rather than eradicating financial autonomy. A retail CBDC would essentially allow the government to mediate all transactions, which would mirror what we see in China. It’s vital to ensure this does not happen here,” said Rep. Davidson.

Rep. Flood said, “In a digital age, cryptocurrency represents new economic opportunities for America – but it’s critical for private sector innovators to take the lead. The American dollar has long been a symbol of prosperity and freedom, and our digital currencies should be the same. The Chinese Communist Party’s move to use government-run digital currency to impose further control on its people and its economy is a cautionary tale that America must avoid. The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is a key step towards ensuring that Americans maintain their financial freedom by prohibiting a centrally controlled digital currency as our economy continues to innovate in the area of digital assets.”

Rep. Donalds said, “As the Federal Reserve continues its study of central bank digital currencies, one thing has become clear – CBDCs pose a clear threat to Americans’ financial independence. Rather than following the lead of oppressive regimes like China and Russia, we should dramatically decrease the federal government’s involvement in personal finances and look to the free market to guide the way regarding innovation. That’s why I’m proud to support Congressman Emmer’s CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act which prevents the issuance of a retail CBDC and ensures the Fed stays within its statutory bounds.”

“The U.S. Government cannot move to issue a digital dollar without an Act of Congress, and before that happens, Congress must first be completely certain a digital dollar can never be used as a surveillance tool. That’s why I’m an original co-sponsor of Whip Emmer’s bill,” said Congressman Pete Sessions. “I am also very concerned that a digital dollar would fundamentally reshape the banking industry to the detriment of consumers and the economy, therefore Congress must fully consider the negative and unintended consequences that could result from issuing a digital dollar, which I look forward to working on with Whip Emmer together on these very important issues in the House Financial Services Committee.”

“I applaud Congressman Emmer’s latest efforts to protect the financial privacy and currency of millions of Americans,” said Congressman Andy Biggs. “A government run digital currency presents a real threat to Americans’ freedom to use their hard-earned money, and fundamentally, to the value of that money – Emmer’s bill ends this threat before it can begin.

“From Big Tech censorship to COVID mandates to now regulating digital currencies, unelected bureaucrats continue to push our nation toward an authoritarian state. This rogue behavior must stop and this legislation gets us closer to achieving that,” Biggs concluded.
“One of my primary concerns with the federal government is its constant push to expand the way it invades and collects information on the American people; and the Federal Reserve’s push to develop a central bank digital currency would allow the Fed to track an individual’s transactions indefinitely. Given the economic uncertainty many Americans are facing, the Federal Reserve should be focused on its core mission of keeping prices stable and ensuring maximum employment, not exploring digital currencies, without congressional input or approval,” said Rep. Loudermilk.

"Innovation is the key to unlocking America's economic future," said Rep. Kim. "I'm proud to join Whip Emmer to introduce the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act to prohibit the Federal Reserve from offering central bank digital currency directly to individuals, allowing the federal government to monitor everyday financial transactions. I'll keep working to promote financial freedom and economic empowerment for all Americans."

Rep. Norman said, “We have enough problems with abusive government surveillance without the Federal Reserve becoming an instrument to possibly monitor and scrutinize individual account holders and their transactions. CBDC would create significant privacy concerns for Americans, so I want to thank Rep. Emmer for his leadership on this important legislation.”

Specifically, the legislation prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC directly to an individual, mobilizing itself into a retail bank able to collect personal information on all Americans. The bill also bars the Federal Reserve from using any CBDC to implement monetary policy, ensuring the Federal Reserve cannot use a CBDC as a tool to control the economy. Additionally, it requires that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors consult each Federal Reserve bank about the development of a CBDC study or pilot program and issue a quarterly report to Congress on their progress and findings. The federal government must be held accountable to the American people. 

Background

Emmer has been a longtime advocate that any Fed-issued digital dollar (central bank digital currency) remain open, permissionless and private. The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act expands upon Emmer’s bill from the 117th Congress, which would have also prohibited the Fed’s direct issuance of a CBDC to individuals. More information about that bill is available here.

Additionally, in December, Emmer led a letter with House Financial Service Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (NC-10) seeking transparency from the Boston Fed on Project Hamilton on the private sector’s role in the project. Project Hamilton is an initiative between the Boston Fed and MIT to research the potential development of a U.S. CBDC and the private sector's role must be transparent. No government body should be in the business of picking winners and losers in private industry. Additional information about this effort can be found here.

Text of the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is available in full here.
###

Permalink: https://emmer.house.gov/2023/2/emmer-leads-effort-to-squash-financial-surveillance-state-initiatives

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
RANE: Assessing the Risk
« Reply #2473 on: March 15, 2023, 02:33:58 PM »
Second

Assessing the Risk of a U.S. Financial Crisis Following the SVB Collapse
6 MIN READMar 15, 2023 | 19:38 GMT



In the United States, authorities' forceful and preemptive intervention after the failure of two prominent banks significantly reduces the risk of a broader destabilization of the U.S. banking and financial system. Since March 10, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and state regulators have taken over California-based Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and New York-based Signature Bank. Authorities have also taken additional measures to prevent a broader run on bank deposits following SVB and Signature Bank's failures, which were the second- and third-largest bank failures in U.S. history, respectively. This included invoking a systemic risk clause that allowed U.S. authorities to guarantee all deposits in the two banks beyond the regular $250,000 insurance cap guaranteed by the FDIC, which was meant to soften the impact of the bank failures on the U.S. economy and signal to those with deposits in other banks that their funds were safe. To ease funding pressure and prevent broader financial contagion, the U.S. Federal Reserve also established a new lending facility that provides banks access to liquidity against eligible collateral, but without the need to take a haircut.

Other mid-sized U.S. regional banks have also come under pressure over concerns about rising financial losses, but so far no other banks have turned insolvent. Meanwhile, large, systemically important U.S. banks (like JPMorgan, Chase and Bank of America) have seen their share prices drop in the wake of the SVB collapse, though much more modestly than mid-sized banks — reflecting concerns about future financial profitability, rather than concerns about solvency or liquidity risk.

The SVB and Signature Bank failures were the result of the banks taking advantage of previous ultra-low interest rates to load up their balance sheets with large amounts of long-term, fixed-rate assets in a search for yield — a strategy that has begun to cause financial losses in the context of the Fed's recent interest rate hikes, which has increased funding costs, and deposit withdrawals. The Fed's monetary tightening over the past year has finally begun to expose financial vulnerabilities. The U.S. central bank kept interest rates at historic lows following the 2008 global financial crisis, and then slashed those rates even further between March 2020 and March 2022 to counteract the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, U.S. banks like SVB benefited from huge tech-related deposit inflows and decided to invest a large share of these inflows into long-term, fixed-rate bonds. But that strategy unraveled once the Fed began hiking interest rates last year to combat rising inflation. The combination of higher interest rates and increased deposit outflows forced SVB to sell its long-term assets at a loss. This, in turn, led to solvency concerns and a run on deposits, as SVB clients scrambled to withdraw their funds for fear of financial losses if the bank folded. Surprised by SVB's sudden unraveling over the weekend, investors began taking a closer look at the balance sheets of other U.S. banks. And in doing so, they found that other mid-sized U.S. banks may have also taken on excessive financial risks during the pandemic-era period of ultralow interest rates, thus prompting the sell-offs of their stocks in recent days. But investors also found that the United States' larger, systemically important banks are not at significant risk, as they are more diversified, sit on more (insured) retail deposits, have greater access to wholesale funding, and have structured the asset side of their balance sheet more intelligently compared with their mid-sized counterparts — explaining why the recent sell-off of large banks' stocks have been much more modest.

Only 3% of SVB's deposits were $250,000 or less, meaning most of its deposits were uninsured. SVB also held 55% of its assets in securities, far higher than any other U.S. bank.

Compared with mid-sized banks, large U.S. banks hold far fewer of their assets in securities. A far larger share of their deposits is also insured. Bank of America, for example, holds 28% of its assets in securities and only 33% of its deposits are uninsured.

More mid-sized U.S. banks may face financial difficulties, but a broader systemic banking crisis is unlikely since larger U.S. banks have much stronger balance sheets than their mid-sized peers and authorities are taking multiple steps to prevent contagion. A broader run on deposits could create a domino effect by leading to further bank failures, which in turn could lead to even more bank failures — impacting the willingness of U.S. banks to extend credit in an attempt to maintain sufficiently large liquidity buffers. This is precisely why it is crucial to intervene early and decisively at the beginning of any potential banking or financial crisis, which is largely what U.S. authorities have done so far in response to the SVB collapse. If more banks are faced with unmanageable deposit outflows, President Joe Biden and other top officials have indicated the U.S. government will intervene to prevent broader panic among depositors.

Moreover, the larger U.S. banks are well-positioned to take over smaller banks that may get into trouble. This means the system-wide fallout should be manageable, even in the likely case that more mid-sized banks' balance sheets come under increased pressure in the coming days and weeks. The banking wobbles will also likely prompt the Fed — and potentially its EU counterpart, the European Central Bank (ECB) — to ease up on monetary tightening during the remainder of the first half of the year, and may even lead the Fed to cut interest rates at some point during the second half of the year, which should help alleviate concerns about a further decline in the value of bank assets (which tend to fall as interest rates rise). Taken together, all of this suggests that the risk of a systemic banking crisis in the United States remains manageable — not least because, unlike the 2008 financial crisis, the systemically important banks remain in relatively good shape this time.

Prior to the bank failures, the Fed was expected to raise interest rates by another 50 basis points next week to combat stubbornly high inflation, but the U.S. central bank will now likely either leave rates on hold or raise them by only 25 basis points at its next meeting this month. The ECB will likely still raise rates by 50 basis points this week, though it may now soften its guidance and leave the open door for a 25 basis point rise before mid-year (instead of the 50 basis point hike it was initially expected to signal).

On March 14, Moody's Investors Service downgraded its outlook for the U.S. banking sector to ''negative'' amid the fallout from the deposit runs at SVB and Signature Bank. But this reassessment does not necessarily indicate future trouble, given that Moody's and other rating agencies' views are generally backward-looking.

As of the close of trading on March 14, the Dow Jones U.S. Banks Index had fallen approximately 15% since March 6. JPMorgan — a proxy for large, systemically important U.S. banks — is down a little more than 6% in the same timeframe, while a proxy measure of the value of mid-sized U.S. regional banks (SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF) has experienced a 22% decline.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
There is a ton of activity in the BTC space. By co-incidence the 3 US banks which failed were crypto banks too, that provided on-ramps to BTC. Also of interest, the Fed launched their "CBDC", but only for institutions at this stage. They will never call it a CBDC, but these will come soon. The timing of the Fed institutional cbdc suits that their is a major financial crisis going on.


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
YA: 

Is there a URL for this so I can play it forward?

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Thank you.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
That is a great meme GM.  Very pithy, very potent.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Buffett budding in
« Reply #2484 on: March 19, 2023, 11:59:09 AM »
if he wants to invest in banks go right ahead

but I don't get how having the government broker between him and banks should be part of the play

just more insider elitist political shenanigans

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-contact-biden-officials-222309661.html

what does he want more tax breaks  while he is at it?

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Credit Suisse purchased by UBS, so the risk shifts to them. In the meantime, looks like money printer go brr..again, BTC at @28K


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Credit Suisse purchased by UBS, so the risk shifts to them. In the meantime, looks like money printer go brr..again, BTC at @28K



https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/131/979/247/original/486f1fdb0d703883.gif


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Oil= $65
VIX= 24
Gold= $2000
BTC= $27, 670

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
This bet by one of the smartest persons I know off, is gaining buzz. While no one, even Balaji expects BTC to go to 1 mill in 90 days, everyone will be fine if it even doubles!. I think Balaji owns a few hundred BTC and if the coin doubles, he makes a lot of money, even if it costs a bit in marketing with his bet!. Balaji says his intention is to warn as many people as possible to get some insurance (BTC). He warned about the Covid pandemic and its consequences, very early on.

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1638136293065658368
« Last Edit: March 21, 2023, 05:25:45 AM by ya »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
FYI, Last time Money supply went to these levels (-2 to -3 %), things did not go well.


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
From twitter..

Tomorrow:

a) The Fed pauses interest rate hikes before hitting their inflation target. Credibility in the Fed system is lost. #Bitcoin pulls a Bitsignal(see chart below).

b) The Fed raises rates despite banking failures, exacerbating the systematic banking crisis. Credibility in the banking system is lost.  #Bitcoin pulls a Bitsignal.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Scott Grannis 3/19/23
« Reply #2492 on: March 21, 2023, 07:10:54 PM »
As always, Scott is an important read:


https://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Here's Balaji explaining the financial crisis, and why he made the bet (BTC at 1 mill in 90 days). Answer...Paul Revere

https://youtu.be/G9ULrFN_lCI

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Marty Armstrong has been saying this for a long time, wars increase inflation. Not sure, how widely this is known

'The Fed is saying that their rise in rates will in fact reduce inflation and economic activity. The banks have this yield curve risk and that is different from the 2007-2009 crisis where the debt was based on fraud. Here, the debt is US Treasuries so they are not going bankrupt from that aspect, but it is a liquidity crisis.

If these people who scream loudly but know nothing really about finance keep up the nonsense, they will only add to the uncertainly. This inflation is accelerating thanks to the war.'

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
They are trying to close the onramps to BTC.
The govt has gone after many crypto banks, infact a few that closed were onramps for crypto. Recently, they have gone after Coinbase issuing them a Wells notice. CB itself has stopped giving free loans while the ACH transfer cleared. In the past CB would allow you to buy say $25 K worth of crypto, immediately after the ACH transfer was made which would take 4-5 days, that has now stopped. In UK, banks are only allowing 1000 pounds worth buying on a daily basis.

People need to get their BTC off the exchanges into self custody. We are at the "then they fight you" stage, next stage is "we win". In the US crypto friendly states are TX and FL, internationally, El salv and UAE as examples.


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Whitehouse FUD on BTC!


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Looks like balance sheet tightening is over. Printer go brr..


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Important testimony by Janet yellen, must listen

https://youtu.be/vy5A55YAZ7E