The best explanation for why SVB failed I’ve read is here.

The bottom line is that as interest rates rose after they’d been low for a long time bonds, including Treasuries, lost value putting strain on balance sheets, and if a bank didn’t handle it right by making the correct bets, they could get slaughtered. Even so SVB might well have survived in a pre-internet banking era and/or if it didn’t have so few depositors, with so many of them depositing so much.

As at the end of 2022, it had 37,466 deposit customers, each holding in excess of $250,000 per account. Great for referrals when business is booming, such concentration can magnify a feedback loop when conditions reverse.

The $250,000 threshold is in fact highly relevant. It represents the limit for deposit insurance. In aggregate those customers with balances greater than this account for $157 billion of Silicon Valley Bank’s deposit base, holding an average of $4.2 million on account each. The bank does have another 106,420 customers whose accounts are fully insured but they only control $4.8 billion of deposits. Compared with more consumer-oriented banks, Silicon Valley’s deposit base skews very heavily towards uninsured deposits. Out of its total $173 billion deposits at end 2022, $152 billion are uninsured.

The Fed appears to have effectively said that from now on all customers in bank failures will be made whole. They’re going to do it for SVB, and once they’ve done it they have to do it for everyone. I suspect a lot of this is because of who SVB’s customers are: Silicon Valley tech firms, including startups. Letting them be wiped out would be a massive blow and rich people are always made whole.

However, it’s a terrible precedent. If there is no risk, if “heads we win, tails the Fed picks up all the pieces” is the case, then why not gamble all to hell? The 2008 bailout was terrible in exactly this fashion, but this is worse. Banks will compete on terms and gamble even more on securities and since customers know they’ll be made whole no matter what, why not go to the bank which offers the most, even if that most is based on vast risk taking?

Back in 2009/10 I wrote repeatedly that the Dodd-Frank financial services bill would be inadequate. It’s ironic really: the banks and brokerages hate the bill, and Dodd, as a result, gave up a very lucrative retirement, but it’s not good enough (or bad enough, if you’re a bank.) Glass-Steagall should have been reinstated with some updates for the modern era, and banks should be have been broken up en-masse. The US now has 4 mega banks and the concentration keeps increasing.

But zero interest rates and quantitative easing were also insane. Tons of free money+shitty bonds with no returns make an odd combination, but like any drug high, coming off it was going to be horrific. As I pointed out years ago, QE did cause inflation, it’s just that it showed up at the high end, since almost all the money was going to already rich people. But the money wasn’t based on actual increases in America’s real economy and that was bound to have consequences.

Most of the money corporations got was spent on stock buy-backs, since that’s a guaranteed return. It was not spent on expanding business.

So here we are. One of the most important banks in America, because it specialized in supporting a key sector and startups has gone under. Concentration has increased. Other banks are suffering from the same basic issues: a bond collapse caused by increased interest rates, making all those Treasuries and so on they hold, supposedly the “gold standard” a bleeding hole.

If the Fed drops interests rates without significant changes to fiscal and operational policy (Congress and Presidency, respectively) then inflation will go even higher. If they don’t drop them, banks continue to bleed. If they raise them…

There’s no such thing as free money. If you increase the money supply faster than the real economy is increasing, and you do that for too long, there will always be ugly consequences. Yes, the pandemic was the trigger, but there’s always going to be another crisis: history does not stop.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.