Early (premature) thoughts on the Silicon Valley Bank collapse.
It looks like a classic Diamond-Dybvig bank run, when each customer withdraws their money because they want to get their funds out while there's still money in the vault.
SVB might have been especially vulnerable because its customers were a tight-knit community. Often if you have worries, I might not hear about them. But if you have worries, and you share them with your VC, they then tell me to withdraw, and it cascades.
We've sort of solved the problem of bank runs: Deposit insurance means folks don't need to respond to dodgy rumors (you'll get paid!), which stops the cascade. (Insured accounts are getting FDIC checks on Monday)
So far there's little evidence of contagion. @WSJ reporting that credit default swaps on the big banks "have barely budged."
There's plenty of headline-worthy charts of certain stocks dipping (eg regional banks), but not much going on where the money is. wsj.com/livecoverage/s…
@WSJ SVB is big enough to matter on its own terms. Indeed, it's the second-biggest bank failure in U.S. history (measured in $; I wonder what that looks like scaled by the size of total deposits instead).
And it plays a key role in the Silicon Valley ecosystem
Right now, things likely look grim on Sand Hill Road, there may be flickers of trouble in dark corners of Wall Street, but overall, few problems for Main Street.
That said, these are early thoughts, surely premature, and may well be wrong. Time will tell.
And if you're teaching introductory macro, and want to explain to your students the economics of the Silicon Valley Bank run, then there's a simple way to do it: Talk about a different kind of commercial paper.
[This is from the Stevenson-Wolfers textbook] #TeachEcon
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our dude here is not just a creeper, he’s also a terrible economist. He thinks his experiment reveals that his seat-mate has an absurd valuation of the right to wear a mask. But he’s forgotten about this thing called adverse selection…
Think about it. Among the population of dudes willing to offer you $100k to drop your mask. Are they:
a) Guys who talk a big game, but don’t mind lying and can’t or won’t give you a penny.
b) Concerned citizens who think this the best use of their funds.
Or even just focus on those who will actually pay you $100k to drop your mask. Are they:
a) Genuinely concerned for you, and trying to show you the true way to freedom;
b) Expressing some weird kind of fetish or power trip, and so they’re trying to buy what you don’t wanna sell.
Over the past three months, we've recorded job gains of +239k (in Dec), +504k (in Jan), and now +311k (in Feb) for an average rate of a smoking hot +351k.
Extraordinary that this occurred through a period of naysayers screaming "recession"!
The slide deck I shared below shows students how to use the concepts they've learned in introductory macro to make sense of the current inflation debate.
I was struck by how easily digestible these concepts can be, and how close we can bring our students to the cutting edge.
Lemme add an observation that's self-serving (but still true): Using just the ideas in the Stevenson-Wolfers textbook makes the current inflation debate digestible to freshmen.
My question for other instructors: Could you say the same about the textbook you're currently using?
My guess: For most intro textbooks, the answer is no. (Intermediate books fare better.)
The problem is the focus on AD-AS yields a theory of price levels, not inflation. Some emphasize MV=PQ which is a nice textbook equation, but unrelated to how the Fed thinks about inflation.
Hey, so if you're an econ instructor teaching macro this semester, I've got something for you.
I'm sharing an up-to-date slide deck that describes our recent inflationary experience using the conceptual frameworks that we teach our students: users.nber.org/~jwolfers/teac…#TeachEcon
None of us know (yet!) where inflation is going—hence the title: "Is it a spike or is it a surge?"
These slides show students how economists assess things in real time.
And they illustrate there can be (good faith!) debate as our early conclusions are necessarily tentative.
The slides aren't designed to only work with the Stevenson and Wolfers textbook -- and I hope others will find them useful. That said, they'll give you a sense of just how much progress a freshman reading our textbook can make, and how prepared they are for big macro debates.
There are few changes of note in the Fed's statement. It's steady-as-she-goes rate tightening, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than suggested earlier.
Markets also expect at least one further rate rise, but are more optimistic that will be the peak of the rate-rising cycle.
The real questions remain: 1. How much higher will rates go?
...And the Fed seems to want to pour cold water on the market's optimism that it'll be done soon.
2. How long will they stay high?
...And this statement provides no new hints on this score.