> We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority.
Two closures in three days is a sign that you have to take this very seriously.
Signature was another bank whose business was primarily in a volatile and risky market:
"Signature is one of the main banks to the cryptocurrency industry, the biggest one next to Silvergate, which announced its impending liquidation last week. It had a market value of $4.4 billion as of Friday after a 40% sell-off this year..."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/12/regulators-close-new-yorks-s...
> The Fed facility will offer loans of up to one year to banks, saving associations, credit unions and other institutions. Those taking advantage of the facility will be asked to pledge high-quality collateral such as Treasurys, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities.
> “This action will bolster the capacity of the banking system to safeguard deposits and ensure the ongoing provision of money and credit to the economy,” the Fed said in a statement. “The Federal Reserve is prepared to address any liquidity pressures that may arise.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/12/regulators-unveil-plan-to-st...
If 2008 did not do it, 2023 has institutionalized moral hazard in the financial system. Never, fear the Fed is here! We will absorb all!
The shareholders getting wiped out and bank management replaced seems like pretty strong incentive for the bank itself not to screw up.
The shareholders lose it all if the bank goes bankrupt. They should have incentive enough to watch over management. If they don’t notice, how does it help for depositors to have their money at risk too?
It's certainly not clear to me why the depositors, as crappy a deal as they got, should be bailed out by unaffected banks that are financially healthy or, as is the case no matter what, the rest of the citizenry should pay.
But I think it's probably economically sound in the long-term as well. That is, asking every depositor with $250K+ to assess the financial health of each bank they use and maybe buy insurance is collectively more expensive than just having the FDIC implicitly insure all deposits.
That's different than asking if it's "fair". But I would wager it's probably more efficient.
Most of the arguments I've seen are effectively arguing that 250K is too low an amount. While that may be true, that was the well-established 'rule of the game'. The FDIC limit was no doubt chosen, as most insured amounts are, to cover the majority of damaged parties, for an acceptable cost.
This isn't grandma or Joe/Jane Public losing their life savings; the FDIC insurance easily covers the vast majority of individuals depositing cash. These are businesses that have, or should have, the financial wherewithal and resources to mitigate their risk beyond the FDIC baseline.
If paying for deposit insurance were available for large accounts, I expect many businesses would choose it. Might as well make it the default?
Perhaps I'm wrong but I suspect a much higher share of deposits are under $250K than the 3% at SVIB. The larger deposits are likely from companies doing a much better job of spreading counterparty risk around, ie traditionally managed companies.
As a college student I worked as an office temp at the hq of an midsized areospace company. They had a Treasurer, Asst Treasurer and clerk. Part of my job every morning was to get the short term deposit rates from a list of banks whom they did business with. They then would place their excess cash with a number of those banks.
More recently, I was president of an HOA. Over a span of 5 years we built up a reserve account to just over $1M for a planned capital improvement. Every 250K we opened a new bank account. Had there been a delay in starting the project we would have opened a 5th.
So yeah, the Treasuer and staff of all of these companies should be taken to the woodshed and most likely fired for incompetency.
Wouldn't it have been more useful if that job simply didn't have to exist, and they could just deal with one bank, and then that extra capital could have gone to something more useful?
Change the game so the risk is being managed in a way that doesn't require every single company to wastefully play financial hopscotch so they can instead focus on doing what they do best.
Not sure a new $25 billion facility matters when outflows can hit that much in a couple of hours.
The long-term bonds would have paid back enough money for SVB to pay back every depositor if there had not been a run that forced them to pay them all back at the same time. Knowing that everyone can get 12 months of runway will do much to allay fears and so reduce risk of further runs.
https://www.usbank.com/bank-accounts/savings-accounts/elite-...
Compare that to a money market fund from a stock broker at 4.5%:
https://www.schwab.com/money-market-funds
The question is, how quickly do simple folks figure out they're being slowly bled, and start moving their cash to some place where it's appreciated?
Because some have better books and management than others and will be underpriced because of reactionary selloffs like you describe?
Why would anyone invest in any business when the risk of bankruptcy exists (FDIC bank takeovers and their resolutions, with or without application of systemic risk exception, are in effect a specialized form of bankruptcy, with a different set of priorities for who gets a haircut, but equity holders are always low on the list for either these or conventional bankruptcies.)
List of investors here: