Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Ataraxic 1191 days ago
I think you're suggesting that somehow SVB a large and sophisticated bank could not contemplate that the fed would raise interest rates. Not to mention despite the size of their bet, they could have unwound this position for the last couple years since their initial bet.

>And they bought safe assets with that money.

The point is that you can't buy 100B of bonds and say "oh bonds are safe". When you buy low yield bonds with a 10 year maturation you're inherently betting that rates aren't going to rise since their valuation will go down if rates rise.

When you're a bank risk management does not involve hoping the fed doesn't raise interest rates. Sometimes you make the wrong bet but you recognize your mistake, take the loss and sell those T-Bonds earlier. Then you plan your communication to clearly explain why so that a bank run doesn't happen.

It seems the one of the pieces in the chain is that there was a big disconnect between the internal perception of the magnitude of the problem and what was communicated. Silicon Valley VCs and startups are twitchy right now and they tried to exit this position too late with too little explanation and got hit with a very old and very traditional bank run.

1 comments

I think you’re simplifying things too much. The issue wasn’t that SVB couldn’t foresee higher interest rates. There were a number of other issues, almost all caused by the Fed and the federal government:

1. Covid stimulus vastly increased the amount of cash at the bank.

2. Artificially low interest rates plus the cash infusion caused inflation.

3. While inflation was beginning, the Fed somehow got it in its head that inflation was “transitory” and rate hikes weren’t needed.

4. The Fed waited too long to raise rates, so they needed to spike rates as quickly as possible once they changed their opinion on inflation.

Basically the government gave banks hundreds of billions of dollars to lend via stimulus spending, and then made those loans worthless by spiking interest rates less than a year later. Whose fault is that really?

> The issue wasn’t that SVB couldn’t foresee higher interest rates.

Becoming insolvent because the rates reached ~5% when history has had far greater rates is in fact an issue for SVB. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

The federal reserve has dual mandates for both full employment and to have stable inflation. These mandates are in many ways opposed to each other. Putting the blame on the fed in hindsight is always easy, but unlike an institution with such a mandate SVB failed at one of the most fundamental parts of being a bank.