Justin Wolfers Profile picture
Mar 13, 2023 11 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Hey, if you're currently teaching micro (time for some game theory), macro (bank runs!) or even finance (maturity transformation!) you may want to add a bit about the Silicon Valley bank run.

Lemme try to give you a quick couple of slides you can insert into class. #TeachEcon
Here's the Diamond-Dybvig model, written down as a simple 2x2. Have the students solve for the *multiple* equilibria! (Pure strategies is enough for today's class.)

[I use the "check mark method" to find the Nash equilibrium]
Next, explain what deposit insurance is.

Now have the students pair off. Together they should:
1. Revise the payoff matrix now that deposit insurance means folks no longer lose $ in a bank run.
2. Solve for the new equilibrium.

Viola! They just solved the problem of bank runs.
Your students just solved bank runs -- in theory... Does it work in practice?

Pretty much perfectly: Bank runs have almost been eradicated since the adoption of deposit insurance.

(Aside: The 2008 financial crisis was a run on shadow banks which don't have deposit insurance.)
Okay, so what's up with Silicon Valley bank?

FDIC insures only the first $250k of your savings. (Aside: When you get rich, open multiple accounts.)

Silicon Valley Bank was different: Its customers were businesses with $$$, so 97% of its deposits were uninsured!

A huge outlier.
This insight helps explain why markets are worried about some banks (but not most banks).

Basically they're looking for other SVB-like banks where customers are uninsured. In fact, as @AliHortacsu shows, these are the banks markets are worried about.
@AliHortacsu All of this explains the government's response.

It's effectively promising to insure everyone's deposits. And then (if our analysis is correct!) this implies that Treasury's actions will put an end to this round of bank runs.

[Govt response is here:
home.treasury.gov/news/press-rel…]
@AliHortacsu Some of your students might still ask why some (but only some!) bank stocks are sinking today. I think this is a partial explanation:
What hustle is over?

This one: Basically SVB took in deposits, and rather than lend them to businesses, it bet on bonds.

But it's a one-sided bet: Heads, it gets the profits. Tails, it lost its customers money, and the govt levies taxes to pay the bill.
What about a critique of the government's policy approach? It's this: If we regulated SVB's betting activity, it couldn't take on this much risk.

Alternatively: If we had insured all the funds a week ago, there never would have been a bank run.
There's *a lot* more to be said about SVB. But this is a barebones structure for what I think will yield a useful class discussion, drawing on a lot of the concepts we teach in introductory econ.

[Paid ad: These notes / graphs come from the Stevenson-Wolfers intro econ textbook]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Justin Wolfers

Justin Wolfers Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JustinWolfers

Nov 4
This counter-response essentially says that any form of weighting in survey research is herding. If so, I love herding!

He's right about the motivation: All weighting is done to ensure that you don't get crazy results. But that's a feature of a good poll, not a bug!
After all: Is there a principled difference between weighting on age (to ensure that your sample includes youngs and olds) and weighting on past vote (to ensure you get folks from across the political spectrum)?
Both age and past vote are:
- Predetermined (before this poll)
- Non-manipulable
- Though self-reported
- And we have good population estimates to weight them to.

What principle would make one of these a legitimate survey design weight and the other "herding"?
Read 9 tweets
Nov 4
Lately @NateSilver has been arguing that pollsters are "herding" —tweaking or hiding their results to avoid publishing outliers.

I don't know any (reputable) pollsters who do this.

And I think the problem here is Nate making a simple math/stats error 🧵 Image
Let's explore binomial distributions and the standard errors of weighted samples.

TL, DR: Weighting across groups with different voting patterns should change how you calculate confidence intervals.

Fail to do so, and you'll falsely accuse pollsters of herding.
First, what @NateSilver538 does:

In a “vanilla” poll—a simple random sample—the standard error of an estimate of a candidate’s vote share, p, in a two horse race is √[p(1-p)/n].

This is the perspective that animates Nate's analysis of "herding". Image
Read 34 tweets
Oct 24
Focusing for a moment on the POLICIES at play.

Voters were asked whether they supported 100 different policies, but weren't told whether the policy was from Trump or Harris.

Nearly all of Harris' policies got majority support from the public, and... 🧵 Image
Far fewer of Trump's policy proposals garnered majority support, and almost none were broadly popular (say, >75% support). Image
Most undecided voters like most of Harris' policies (left graph).

Most undecided voters dislike most of Trumps policies (right graph). Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 13
Senator, I think it's worth acknowledging that violent crime actually has falllen, and indeed it is lower today than it has been for decades. Image
This decline in violent crime is evident in not just the FBI reports, but also an independent survey by the BJS. Image
If you don't trust data from G-men, the decline in homicide rates the FBI reports is also evident in a count of death certificates in which coroners cute homicide as the cause of death. Image
Read 6 tweets
Oct 4
Wowza: HUGE jobs report.

September payrolls grew +254k, well above expectations.

August payrolls revised up +17k to +159k, and July revised up +55k to +144k.

Unemployment fell to 4.1%

This economic expansion that is motoring along.
Honestly, there's not much to say here other than that fears the job market had slowed turned out to be a statistical illusion due to incomplete data.

Over the past three months, payrolls is motoring along at +186k per month, on average, which is pretty much where you want it.
(The conspiracy theories on revisions to economic numbers confuse me, and I can't remember whether numbers getting revised up to look good is evidence of a conspiracy, or numbers later get revised down is evidence of an initial conspiracy that falls apart.)
Read 12 tweets
Oct 2
Senator, you're misleading folks again. I just read the CBO report you recommend. It actually says that an immigration surge boosts federal revenues quite dramatically, and has only a small effect on mandatory spending and interest.
Image
The CBO study @JDVance cites analyzes how immigration improves the *federal* budget.

Yet he pulls a misleading quote, talking about the effects of *state and local* budgets and ignoring the (likely larger) federal govt impacts.

Here's the CBO directly saying this isn't okay: Image
Of course, you might ask: How could @JDVance have known that this was a study of *federal* budgets, not of what's happening to *state and local* budgets?

Well, the title yields a vital clue. Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(