Senator Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, and the Bank Bailout Blame Game

Barney Frank Blames Crypto, Elizabeth Warren Blames Trump 

Here’s my Hoot of the Day: Barney Frank Blames Crypto, Elizabeth Warren Blames Trump 

Former Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Elizabeth Warren — two key architects of the post-2008 system of Wall Street regulation — are at odds over what’s dragging down banks once again.

Frank, who chaired the House Financial Services Committee in the wake of the global financial crisis and wrote sweeping new rules enacted in 2010, most recently served on the board of New York’s Signature Bank, which regulators shut down Sunday.

From his front-row seat, he blames Signature’s failure on a panic that began with last year’s cryptocurrency collapse — his bank was one of few that served the industry — compounded by a run triggered by the failure of tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank late last week. Frank disputes that a bipartisan regulatory rollback signed into law by former President Donald Trump in 2018 had anything to do with it, even if it was driven by a desire to ease regulation of mid-size and regional banks like his own.

But Warren, a fellow Massachusetts Democrat who designed landmark consumer safeguards that ended up in Frank’s 2010 banking law, is placing the blame firmly on the Trump-era changes that relaxed oversight of some banks and says Signature is a prime example of the fallout.

Cluelessness From Barney

No, you clueless [#@&%$!] fill in your own words, crypto had nothing to do with this. But if it did, then why on the board of Signature Bank didn’t you act stop it or at least speak out?

The irony in blaming crypto is that Barney Frank just pointed a finger at himself!

Cluelessness From Warren

Warren blames Trump, which I rebut below. 

Neither point to the real problems and they are many, starting with the Fed, FDIC, and politicians. 

Fed-Induced Mania 

The Fed started a speculation mania. Fed rules state long-term treasuries are risk-free.

Nothing Trump did had anything to do with either of those facts. 

Neither the San Francisco Fed, which oversees Silicon Valley Bank, nor the FDIC sounded any alarms over the obvious risky behaviors at either bank. 

Political Blame

Warren herself is partially to blame and so is President Biden for seeking the biggest inflationary free-money handouts in history. 

If you want to blame Trump for something, two of the three free-money handouts were sponsored by him although the second came in Biden’s term. 

But the biggest and most reckless free-money handout was 100% sponsored by Democrats including President Biden and Elizabeth Warren.

Back to the Fed

Ultimately, it is the Fed’s responsibility to understand how fiscal policy plays into inflation. 

The Fed not only sponsored the biggest asset bubble in history, it failed to understand how free money, student debt cancellations, and zero percent interest rates might cause inflation. 

If the Fed cannot see the obvious, why is there a Fed?

Musical Tribute

Blame Game, Let’s Do Barney

Barney! Barney, Barney Bo-Barney Bo-na-na fanna Fo-Farney Fee-fi-mo-Marney Barney!

Warren! Warren, Warren Bo-Bernen Bo-na-na fanna Fo-Fernen Fee-fi-mo-Morren Warren!

Never Again

“Never again should large companies with billions in unsecured deposits expect, or receive, free support from the government,” said Elizabeth Warren in a New York Times op-ed bashing Trump while never looking at her own culpability. 

Of course, all these people saying ” Never again”, always want one more bailout (just this once). 

Yellen Said “No Bailout” 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Said “No Bailout” on Sunday but facts show It’s a Huge Bailout of the Banking System

The Fed bailed out depositors which is how they are playing this up.

But the Fed also guaranteed no losses on long-term assets of banks that engaged in leveraged speculation. Banks will not have to mark unrealized losses to market.

Banks held about $600 billion in unrealized losses. 

That’s a bank bailout folks, period, even if the bank executives are forced out.  

Getting to the Point

Trying to Be Polite

Danielle DiMartino Booth Chimes In

Banks Suffer another Big Decline Despite the Fed’s Bailout Magic

Earlier today I noted Banks Suffer another Big Decline Despite the Fed’s Bailout Magic

Here’s the question I asked, and it’s worth repeating:

What’s the Message?

Could it be that the banking sector is so feeble and has so much risk of contagion that the Fed felt forced to do a bailout?

If that’s not the message, then someone please tell me what it is. 

If bond risk is rising, expect stocks to fall. And by the way, I expect this is just round one of the Blame Game for this set of Fed actions.

This post originated at MishTalk.Com.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

91 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Counter
Counter
1 year ago
Barney Frank, what housing bubble?
amigator
amigator
1 year ago
The FED is serving its shareholders.. the big banks. It was constructed back in 1913 by Mr. JP Morgan himself and others. He and other bankers were tired of bailing each other out with their own money so they found a way to hang it on the taxpayers…..
It is working perfectly. Let me restart that THE FED IS WORKING NEARLY PERFECTLY. It’s only suppose to look like the Fed is here to help mainstream America.
Democritus
Democritus
1 year ago
“If the Fed cannot see the obvious, why is there a Fed?”
Mish… why are you so convinced that the people at the Fed try to do the right thing but fail somehow… Time after time after time after time?
The more coincidence, the less coincidence. Doesn’t Occam’s Razor suggest that the people at the Fed are simply malicious – working for the very rich only?
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
“If the Fed cannot see the obvious, why is there a Fed?”
If The Fed could see the obvious, they would quit. And there would be no Fed.
Hence, obviously: The Fed’s mere existence, is proof positive that The Fed can’t see the obvious.
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
A bank analyst told Liz Fangs that the Dow might reach/breach 1929 to 2000 line in June on the way to 37K/39K. She will
start bitching around in Sept /Oct, stick her fangs in JP and never let go until JP and his Fed are gone.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Once again we are seeing BOTH the right-wing parties blaming each other for the mess that BOTH of them have caused together. The Republicans blame it on their usual “woke” this or that or the other. And the DONORcrat Party folks blame it all on “bad man” Trump and his fans.
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
Elizabeth Fangs : you want $250,000 we don’t have $250,000, we will give u $250,000 in installments, in the next 10Y
===> 250,000 : ( 10 x 12 ) = $2K/M
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
The only way to prevent repeated bailouts is more regulation and a return to pre-1999 financial regulation. We had no bailouts by the Fed prior to that because money at banks was treated with better risk management due to what banks could and couldn’t do with the money.
The argument about the Fed policy is a different one. The current problem is about the context of why SVB failed in the framework of the given system.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
So, how do you explain the S&L crisis in 1987?
No matter what, Banks can make bad investments. There’s no way to prevent it. SVB made bad investments in treasuries and GSEs. Things that banks are supposed to invest in for safety reasons.
This was caused by the FED raising rates too fast. Not bad governance.
Columbo
Columbo
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Ah, yeah they could. Keep the investments to a short duration. In other words, diversify the portfolio.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Columbo
For a long time, short term treasuries were paying close to 0. Buying a lot of these would have guaranteed the bank would lose money. They had to buy longer dated securities because they were the only thing paying enough interest to keep the bank profitable.
Columbo
Columbo
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
I’m not saying that they couldn’t invest in longer maturities, but the duration of the overall portfolio was too high. Also, it appears Congress should not have increased the “too big to fail” rules from 50 B to 250 B.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Columbo
How did the rule change lead to the bank failures?
Columbo
Columbo
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
I’m not sure if it would have helped, but they would have been under stricter capital leverage rules.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
We’ve had bailouts of banks since 1911. Why do you think The Fed was created i the first place?
Every time The Fed lowers rates, it bails out banks by pumping up the nominal value of their loan collateral. None of which is in any economically meaningful way different from bailouts by any other means.
If we had no bailouts, the number of dollars backed by “the full faith and credit” would still equal 20 times the number of ounces in Fort Knox. The rest is ALL bailouts. ALL transfers to Fed connected, clueless and useless banksters.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago

Mr Becker was only one in a legion of executives from smaller and mid-sized banks, collectively known as regional lenders, who made a similar case that ultimately succeeded.

“One size fits all — those rules just don’t work,” Mr Trump said at the White House in 2018, as he celebrated the removal of “crippling” rules.

“They shouldn’t be regulated the same way as the large complex financial institutions, and that’s what happened and they were being put out of business one-by-one.”
“I have no doubt that if this bank had been subject to the much tougher regulation that they would not have been allowed to buy long-term Treasuries and long-term debt instruments insured by the federal government — basically, mortgage-backed securities,” said Brad Sherman, a Democratic congressman from California.

“They would have been pushed to buy short-term instruments and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Bloomberg contributed to this report

KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
All attack and no data to back up the claims. What specifically did Trump do and how specifically would it have prevented this?
This is a repeat of the train derailment being blamed on Trump. it was never true.
Keep Trying
Keep Trying
1 year ago
It’s the feds fault. Even if it is true, with over 100 years of financial manipulation, how does one flip a switch and fix it? I tend to blame the fed too, but if I were in charge of the fed, I’d probably have done something similar in response to the recent snafu. We might think we’d be fine, but a total outright bank run and world wide deposit withdrawal would screw up almost everybody! Somehow it isn’t gonna hurt me, though. I’m prepared for it. Yea, right. You’re lying to yourself, if you believe that.
We are so trapped!
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  Keep Trying
“how does one flip a switch and fix it?”
One flips a switch and fixes it.
Gold at $20/oz. No activity taxation. Let the chips fall were they may.
No oilwell will dry up, no corn stop growing, no factory nor house fall down, and no nurse nor driver nor engineer forget his/her skills. Just the debt currently hanging like a boat anchor around the ankles of it all weighing t down, wiped out. And the “ownership”of all the assets somewhat randomised. Rather than being concentrated among an idiot class who never did anything of value in return for being handed it all.
WW2 served a similar randomisation role. Just in a much more clumsy and more universally destructive fashion. Ut the end result of throwing the “fortunes” of the 20s-era First-Fed-Beneficiaries-Generation into the tumbler, was the post WW2 boom. So far the last boom of any relevance the West experienced.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
“The Fed not only sponsored the biggest asset bubble in history, it
failed to understand how free money, student debt cancellations, and
zero percent interest rates might cause inflation.”
Lest we forget, there were the rent/mortgage moratoriums that made considerable money available for other spending.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Giving people and banks a big punchbowl of spiked punch and then suddenly taking it away would produce strange behavior in both.
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
The blue zone who were born in 1923 remember that Biden fired JP in 2024 for bankrupting the Fed and causing banking crisis #1, banking crisis #2, #3, #4, #5. For them Lehman was bs, a rd trip to 2002.
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
1 year ago
Maybe the FED was trying to use interest rates as a financial weapon against China, but instead shot US banks.
Sunriver
Sunriver
1 year ago
10 year treasury yield will be around 3.5% (lower?) when the FED ‘attempts’ to hike the FED FUNDS to 5% next week. Won’t happen.
The market demands a 0% FED FUNDS rate forever and they’ll get it!
I smell a crisis!!!!
NO FED rate hike next week, and a 0% FED FUNDS RATE by 2025. Including Y.U.G.E. QE.
What a stupid experiment the FED was trying to pull off.
THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH DEBT TO HAVE A TERMINAL FED FUNDS RATE NORTH OF: 3%
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Sunriver
They’ll cut. Maybe not at the next meeting, bur they’ll start before years end. I doubt they’ll ever cut below 2%. They’ve learned their lesson as far as 0% rates go.
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
Biden and Elizabeth Fangs blame Trump. SPX might rise for few weeks. Gundlach : we need a weaker dollar, we need inflation
but might get deflation
CzarChasm Reigns
CzarChasm Reigns
1 year ago
Let’s blame transparency:
“People are just shocked at how stupid the CEO is,” the Silicon Valley Bank insider said. “You’re in business for 40 years and you are telling me you can’t raise $2 billion privately? Get on a jet and fly to Kuwait like everyone else and give them control of one-third of the bank.”
CzarChasm Reigns
CzarChasm Reigns
1 year ago
If I knew how to edit, I would have added to the original post:
“One Silicon Valley Bank employee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, was dumbfounded by how Becker publicly acknowledged the extent of the bank’s financial troubles before privately lining up the necessary financial support to ride out the storm.”
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Oddly enough, on Thursday night I watched a multi-part documentary about John Gotti Sr. & John Gotti Jr. They were amateurs compared to SVB, Silvergate, and the VCs. Gangsters all of them.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
I really don’t like the “blame game” label. Whether or not someone intends to convey it, the implicit message is that analysis and accountability are somehow a triviality, a game. That can be true, but rarely. I go the other way. My good buddy the retired CFO would liken himself to “a proctologist with a depth perception problem.” He ran a tight ship. Blame game? Bring it on. I think there should be a ruthless investigation and ruthless penalties. This is NOT some game.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
1 year ago
the answer is in history and reality of who the fed is owned by. the nyc bankers, not the regionals and small time country banks. in all the panics since the FED founding, the NYC bankers preyed on the regionals in times of stress. like JPM just did with SVB by getting lots of their bank run customers. the FED is owned by a few bankers. they ain’t in the business of caring about inflation, r/e prices, economy or regional banks. i really think so many folks are just so naive. the only reason powell was jacking up rates was to reload the bazooka so when and if JPM and C and Goldman………need bailouts or free money, they get it. and of course they get first dibs on all banks and r/e in trouble. it’s a total scam, and not right, but it is the reality. gold is the only defense against being their victims. i always suggest folks keep enough to sleep at night. it’s real money. not mortgaged or borrowed…….or “printed” or electronic cursors……….
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
Truer words were never spoken.
“Follow the money.”
EquitableTrade
EquitableTrade
1 year ago
I feel like some of the blame has to be laid at the stimulus of 2020 and 2021. Deposits at SVB went from $62 billion in 2019 to $173 billion in 2022. A lot of banks saw something similar. Deposits went through the roof due to stimulus and PPE money. Banks like SVB that purchased long-dated treasuries made a serious mistake investing those deposits. If the stimulus had not happened, would SVB been able to make that mistake? Would inflation be as high forcing the FED to raise rates?
I just hope someone learns something from this.
Mish
Mish
1 year ago
Reply to  EquitableTrade
Deposit surge little if not nothing to do with Congressional free money.
Everything to do with QE.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
The Scientific Method.
Borrow and print money.
Observe inflation.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  EquitableTrade
I think they would have still had issues. Just the losses would have been less.
Fred C Dobbs
Fred C Dobbs
1 year ago
In an effort to be helpful, let me point out the obvious: there is no reason for lenders to ever expose themselves to ‘interest rate risk’. If they increase the rate of interest they charge their customers in tandem or lock step with the FED, there is no risk. For example, if you lend money at three percent when the Fed lends money at one percent, and the FED raises its rate to two percent, and you, at the same time, raise the rate on the money you lent to four percent, there is no interest rate risk. Life goes on as before the FED rate increase. This is what banks could and did in the ‘old days.’ So why don’t all the banks do that? There is no prohibiting law or regulating is there? Is it because the bankers want to lose money on purpose, claim the status of victim, and wallowing in self-pity? You don’t have an answer do you?
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
Retail trading peon here, in early Spring 2020 I distinctly recall asking myself “why would anyone buy treasuries here, at these rates, at these prices?”, I then shorted and did well.
Apparently banks did buy then, some, and your question “Is it because the bankers want to lose money on purpose, claim the status of victim, and wallowing in self-pity?” is the same I was proposing yesterday.
Did the banks exec’s maybe have counter positions?…Maybe through outside parties?
Also, regarding your “lockstep” comment, I’d wager SVB had a lending frenzy at the same time in 2020, I’ll guess they had a lot of lower interest business loans from that time, specifically where they did a lot of business/tech loans and maybe had defaults with the recent tech slump.
Mish
Mish
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
No huge lending issue.
They took deposits and invested them in long-duration treasuries.
By the way, banks don’t really lend deposits in the first place.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
Right, they lend a multiple of their reserves, which, while I have your attention, begets the question of what zero reserve requirements means? ..Or, is that what you’re referring to?
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Zero reserve requirements means that if depositors want some of their money back and you don’t have it, it is OK to borrow the money to give them.
This can lead to problems.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
Not sure you quite understand what happened.
No loans defaulted at this bank because this bank doesn’t make loans.
Instead what this bank does is take in deposits and hold them while paying interest on the deposit. In order to generate the money to pay interest on the deposits the bank invests the deposits (rather than make loans) in what’s supposed to be risk free bonds/treasuries. What happened is the value of those bonds and treasuries fell (hint: they aren’t risk free) is now below the amount of the deposits.
So your suggestion of raising loan rates doesn’t help.
kingfx
kingfx
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Um, 72 billion loan book eoy 2022
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
“No loans defaulted at this bank because this bank doesn’t make loans.”
* “SVB Doubled Its Canada Loan Book in Year Before Collapse” – link to news.yahoo.com
* “More than half of bank’s portfolio composed of fund financing” – link to bloomberg.com
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Bonds/treasuries are loans. Jeez!
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
I am focused now on the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, which lent SVB $15 billion last fall. How and why in Satan’s name did THAT happen? The idea that the collapse came as a surprise doesn’t compute. SVB was in trouble last year. They knew it, and I believe that at least one bank analyst said so publicly in November.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
One other thing. Please, please, please keep explaining anything emanating from your regulatory experience. Your observations are FAR more valuable than 99% of the commentary here, including my own. Thanks very much for your posts about this. I have learned a whole lot. Keep it coming.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
I’m confused. Are you saying that a bank should only make ARM-ish loans, not fixed rate? With the ARM interest rate always set to Fed+X%?
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
That’s the only way what he posted makes sense. And the downside is as interest rates go up, default rates would too. So, there were would be more loan losses.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred C Dobbs
Not true. If a bank issued say 100b in loans at 3% when the FED rate was 1% and then the FED quickly raised rates to 5%, all those 3% loans would be worth less. And if the bank didn’t respond by paying say 4% interest on deposits, a lot of deposits would be withdrawn and invested somewhere else that pays 4%.
LawrenceBird
LawrenceBird
1 year ago
Your are well off the mark Mish and it is clear your distaste for Warren and Sanders clouds your judgment. Had the regulations requiring stress testing of banks with assets over $50B been left in place instead of changed to $250B by Trump and the GOP, this mess would have never happend. SVIB was in regulatory compliance and had tier 1 capital in excess of the same. So if you wanted the Fed or State bank examiniers to stop it you would have needed to have a failed stress test that was no longer required by law.
Mish
Mish
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
“stress testing”
What a hoot!
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
When they say “stress test” it is using language that makes it seem it is like taking a radiator to the shop for a simple pressure test. Bank health is more complicated than that when you are “pushing the envelope” in the wind tunnel of financials.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  Christoball
“Bank health is more complicated than that”
Like almost anything else: It is way too complicated to be usefully “stress tested” by anything except reality itself.
Only children fall for the scam that some oversimplified “measure” and “test” can ever be useful for telling anything meaningful about a complex world. If it was not so, five year planning would work. It doesn’t.
Instead, what works is: Let it rip and see what happens. With third parties never being dragged into anything they did not specifically and individually sign up for.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
Mish, could the implementation of Basel III on 01 January 2023 have had any effects in the background?
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
By the time the stress test fails it’s already too late. If you announce a stress test failure to the public you guarantee a run on that bank and if you keep it quiet you will only anger anyone caught when it finally does fail or when the results inevitably leak out.
The FDIC essentially did a stress test this weekend and closed the bank down with only 10-20% losses instead of total failure. Not to mention lots of websites have predicted this for months so there was plenty of advance notice.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I side with Lawrence on this, if there were at least knowledge of SVB’s holdings it could have been mitigated.
That said, I also worry about how many landmines are hidden thanks to the removal of requirements under Trump on regional mid sized banks.
.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Everything was well known for at least 9 months if not a full year ago. They are required to publish their holdings.
But you have to know what to look for to find the problem. Only a few people did that.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I think you might be confusing realized & unrealized value, I’m no Fed lawyer, but I recall reading over the last two days that SVB wasn’t required to display unrealized losses, but only value at purchase price.
Again, not an expert on the law, but as you state, only a minority of experienced individuals would pick up on that, and they likely do research for hedge funds, not the most likely to share the knowledge.
.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
“By the time the stress test fails it’s already too late. If you announce
a stress test failure to the public you guarantee a run on that bank
and if you keep it quiet you will only anger anyone caught when it
finally does fail or when the results inevitably leak out.”
Another excellent example of the Uncertainty Principle.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Christoball
I thought the Uncertainty Principle was that you could measure how fast the dollar is moving or where the dollar is, but you can’t know both things at the same time.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
Stress testing of banks is PR to make the public think their deposits are safe. It’s never saved a bank from failure.
KyleW
KyleW
1 year ago
The banking system is designed to let banks gamble customer money without consequences, but it is annoying listening to people who made it worse bloviate about whose fault it is.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Frank blames crypto. Warren blames Trump. Mish blames the Fed, FDIC and politicians.
What’s the message?
I will tell you. Though I have said it many times before:
Playing the blame game is a waste of time. Better to go for a hike and avoid the stress of things you can’t change. Look after yourself and your investments. Look after your family and friends.
Stop playing the blame game.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
When will you realize it is NOT a blame game? For many of us, it is a concerted effort to understand the forces at work, often tinged with sarcasm in my case since it is all very predictable (at present). I can’t change the forces, but I can exploit them. Any bank with long duration bonds that have been should have been short term, will have liquidity problems… My point, the ‘forces’ drive’ economic fundamentals that ‘drive’ the markets.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
It’s all your fault, don’t deny it.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
I saw him do it.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Bigger picture, fault lies on Congress for allowing bribery to be legal, then pawning the resulting economic mess on to the Fed.
Don’t get me started on SCOTUS members hanging out with their corporate sponsors.
Global trade/outsourcing and “Job creating tax cuts” have created jobs for China, India, Mexico, “trickle down” has failed miserably with wages slumping and household debt to income almost doubling since 1980 as well as government debt, the Fed then lowers rates to induce consumption, wash, rinse, repeat for 40 years and here we are, Fed’s back against the wall.
The good news, the Mercers, the Koch’s, Musk, Bezos are paying single digit taxes, good for them, now, back to how the Fed screwed this up, or Warren, or Frank …where were we?
.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
“If the Fed cannot see the obvious, why is there a Fed?”
Because the alternative is Congress.
My God, no.
.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Then, why is there a Congress? Or, more specifically, what does Congress have to do with money and interest?
Per the Founders; the last gang of goons over there who weren’t entirely obviously just clueless crooks: A dollar is simply a claim on 1/20th of an ounce of Gold in held in Fort Knox. Neither Congress nor Fed has anything to do with it.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
The problem is “who” Congress is acting for, not what their powers are.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
‘The problem is “who” Congress is acting for, not what their powers are.’
That supposed “problem” was understood, and and solved, hundreds of years ago. There hasn’t been an economically literate soul since at least Adam Smith, who does not realise that 1)Getting government to do YOUR bidding, is a good. And 2) All goods are sold to the highest bidder. Only children, and only vapid ones at that, can’t put those two together.
Government bails out Goldman Sachs executives, with money stolen from starving children, because Goldman Sachs executives can outbid starving children for government services. Simple as that. Always, everywhere, throughout all time. NO exceptions. Economic laws don’t just, like you know, sometimes, not work. Goods ARE sold to the highest bidder. Not the lowest one. No matter what some child brained, economically illiterate adman may claim on TeeVee. And yes: being bailed out from losing lots of money is very much A GOOD. No different from any other good.
Hence: The only limitations on the extent to which all and any government will rip the internal organs out of poor children in order to hand them to wealthy donors, is limitations on how much power government possesses to do exactly that. Not “But Trump and Putin is Mean! And Democrats are Niiiiiice!” Nor vice versa.
And being able to print money cost free, gives one an absolutely enormous amount of power. The power to, entirely arbitrarily, transfer as much of other people’s wealth; to oneself, or to whomever one preferentially hands the newly printed money to; as one feels like. Power which which will then, always and everywhere, be sold as a service to the highest bidder. Hence why starving children have gotten starvinger; while Goldman Sachs, as well as SVB, executives have gotten wealthier, since 1971.
Economics, heck elementary logic, doesn’t get any simpler than that. Any population so singularly illiterate and stupid they can’t even follow that one is, thank goodness I suppose; also invariably illiterate and stupid enough to, decade after decade, be beaten at “capitalism” by, of all things, a bunch of commies. As well as, despite spending several quadrillions worth of stolen loot to supposedly prevent just that, being beaten at war by cavemen. Ultimate stupidity begets ultimate failure, at everything, after all.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
With SVB, the bonds are trading at around 50 cents on the dollar. Bonds are in line behind deposits over $250k, so it’s likely all deposits would be made whole without any intervention. Might take a while, but it would almost certainly happen. Bond and equity holders will be the losers with SVB. Not depositors.
As far as the bailout goes. The FED is simply going to accept collateral at par. It’s treasuries and GSEs. Worst case is the collateral is held until maturity by the FED and they break even. Even if the GSE bonds went south, the FED would have to bail out those bonds one way or another like they did in 08/09.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
The worst case is they lose money by holding to maturity. That can happen if the coupon (interest rate paid on the treasury/GSE) is less than inflation.
That’s why the banks are in this mess. The long dated securities are paying only 1-2% because they were purchased a couple years ago in zero interest environment. Now in 5% inflation market they are losing money rapidly because they don’t keep up with inflation.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
There is no line item for inflation losses per se in any proper balance sheet.
This would be like trying to account for profits you didn’t make because you sold too soon.
I have seen allowances for inflation in a few P & L projections.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I’m referring to nominal losses. Not real losses. Every treasury bill loses money in real terms.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
“With SVB, the bonds are trading at around 50 cents on the dollar.”
AFTER The Fed signalled they’d happily starve the rest of America to death, if that was what it would take to make “depositors” feel better about cluelessly wasting all their money yet again.
The Delta between those 50 cents on the dollar, and what the bonds would have traded at absent any Fed at all is, full stop; pure wealth transfers to those bond holders. Hence FROM people who didn’t act stupidly enough to lose their savings/investment yet again.
And ditto the delta between every other “asset” price after Intervention, vs absent Fed and possible bailouts. After all, printing dead guys’ heads on paper pieces does not create any real wealth. So; always and everywhere; for every penny NOT lost by some dunce, there has to be a corresponding penny taken from someone else. Just basic arithmetic. Nothing more involved than that.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Blame game? Better question is how do I profit from this and the upcoming calamities because the Fed is gonna Fed no matter what. I am seeing YUGE large selling of calls against most banks and large firms for April expiry, guessing people expect them to expire worthless which means they are expecting stocks to tank more in April.
I’m not dipping my toe into this mess until we have more clarity.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
Options activity is often herd mentality.
The wall of worry is built on short squeezes.
.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
And who is on the other side?
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Suckers hoping for a short squeeze.
Counter
Counter
1 year ago
They knew, so what’s the end game?
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
Reply to  Counter
Consolidation of banks and killing off crypto. Short term.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
Bitcoin is up 15% today.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
Which explains why banks are failing, and will continue to fail. It is not about Bitcoin but critical thinking, not herd mentality
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Bitcoin is up because one of the prime stablecoins was bailed out via the SVB bailout. Otherwise it would not be able to claim it’s 1-1 with the US dollar if it had to take a 10 or 20% haircut.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Like I said, herd mentality.
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Reply to  Counter
The end game is more concentration in the financial industry. Bigger banks with better political leverage. That way, they can get bailed out faster.
But maybe the end game is to get people to see regional and community banks as unsafe. The they will want government safety with account directly with the Fed. Managed by the big banks so that they can still make money. That could be the advent of a US CBDC. A CBDC offers up a lot of control and would be an easy way to track money and collect taxes.
Counter
Counter
1 year ago
Reply to  Counter

When credit creation slows after an asset bubble driven by credit for asset transactions, the ensuing fall in asset prices, capital losses and non-performing loans can easily trigger a Banking crisis.

The vast majority of commercial banks that have ever operated in the U.S. have disappeared. Since its all-time high of 30,456 in 1921, the bank population had declined to only 4,377 at the end of 2020, a decline of about 86%
Good way to kill the competition. Power grab
PreCambrian
PreCambrian
1 year ago
Although Frank and Warren may pontificate from their point of view, the Fed is the most culpable for this bank problem. The large depositors should have been given the option of either taking funds from liquidation of the holdings or taking the underlying bonds themselves. The might have made a profit especially with interest rates dropping so much today.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  PreCambrian
It appears the market now thinks the Fed is underwriting all bonds, hence higher prices and lower yields as risk is lower. LMAO. The Fed has now lost control. Everyone will have their hand out.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.