The Fed's report on Silicon Valley Bank's failure is out, and it's a ripper, with Vice Chair Barr leading by calling it "a textbook case of mismanagement by the bank."
All power to Fed Vice Chair Michael Barr for getting right at the heart of the issue, and not pulling his punches.
Barr echoes the claims that I made #onhere that Silicon Valley Bank really is an outlier "because of the extent of its highly concentrated business model, interest rate risk, and high level of uninsured deposits."
But outliers and unusual edge cases happen (especially when there are billions of dollars on the line), so he correctly points out that this episode reveals important problems in the current regulatory framework.
The Fed is also explicit in noting that the Trump-era weakening of bank regulation "impeded effective supervision" and "is a key reason why Silicon Valley Bank was allowed to get itself into such a mess.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fed has raised rates by a quarter of a percentage point, pretty much as expected. The rate hike is less than the half point many were expecting a few weeks ago, so gives voice both to the fight against inflation, and to slowing down in the wake of financial distress.
The important part of the statement is that today's slightly smaller rate rise is a rise delayed, rather than a raise denied:
"The Committee anticipates that some additional policy firming may be appropriate..."
And this is a decision that creates stability, as it coheres with expectations (which it shaped). It was always clear the most important goal was "no surprises," and it succeeded.
A mixed bag on inflation, but at least not a big surprise:
- Headline inflation at 0.4% in Feb is a tick below expectations (of 0.5%)
- Core inflation at 0.5% m/m is a tick above expectations (0.4%)
The latter is bigger news than the former.
Definitely not terrible; not great.
If you want to look backwards, you'll celebrate the fact that year-ended inflation is still trending down, from a peak of 8.9% in June [core: 6.6% in September] to 6.0% [and 5.5% for the core].
But whether inflation is trending down now looks to be a stickier question (ha! pun intended...)
Over the past three months, core CPI has run at an annualized rate of 5.2%, compared with 5.0% over the prior three months (and 6.1% before that).
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.
The economic stakes in the SVB bailout are whether it was worth a (relatively) small amount of money to prevent a small chance of a broader financial crisis. Folks can easily have different views.
The emotional stakes are about fairness, and nearly everyone I know feels enraged.
There's a lotta bad takes about the stakes in the SVB bailout. Even without divine intervention depositors were going to get
a) Their first $250k
b) Plus (guesstimating) 90-100 cents of each $ above that
c) FDIC would have tried to get some (half?) of this out within a few days
Point is, most startups could have still made payroll. Those who couldn't, but were good credit risks, could have gotten an advance elsewhere. And workers would definitely have gotten paid eventually.
Once again it's privatize the gains and nationalize the losses.
They're not using taxpayer funds. Just taxing banks, then using the proceeds of a tax — which are definitely not to be thought of as taxpayer funds that could be used for other purposes — to pay for the bailout.
The Treasury statement appears to claim that they've discovered spending that involves no opportunity cost. It's a miracle, if true!
There are serious arguments to be had about whether the benefits of the SVB bailout exceed the costs, but pretending there are no costs ain't it.
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.