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.
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
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"?
This decline in violent crime is evident in not just the FBI reports, but also an independent survey by the BJS.
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.
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.)
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.
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:
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?