[dmix]

Nor would it ever be public. If it was the banks at the top would be under FDIC tomorrow or being pressured to not be within the next month.

The 2008 crisis showed FDIC at their most effective but the vast majority of the ~100/per yr banks taken over were known well before any customer found out. The difference between them and SVB was that w/ SVB served plenty of well connected VCs who dedicated their lives to being connected to the latest market information before other VC/angel/wall st players found out. Mom and pop shops even with larger banking businesses never faced the same sort of bank run risk.

Their financial state could be kept hidden without it turning into a bank run 100x easier than a bank serving VC-connected types. So as long as the FDIC learned of problems all they had to do was move before the regular consumer bank client found out their small town bank branch was at risk, which was a much easier ask. Then once FDIC finds a larger buyer to stabilize it the customer didn't worry too much and the business is saved, although typically owned by some mega bank.

SVB was the last sort of business to survive such an information risk almost by design of their clientele.

[adam_arthur]

Public companies file public records, so yes, it is public.

And First Republic Bank looks like it could be the next to fail, likely within days, barring intervention. Without a systemic backstop the runs will almost certainly continue

[dmix]

First Republic Bank stock has already tumbled. If you want a DB of bank's with obvious issues that are already public just track their stocks.

[adam_arthur]

The stock price has nothing to do with whether the bank is solvent. It's about the balance sheet and if they can service a large amount of withdrawals within a short timespan.

Stock price can only be treated as an indicator of what the market thinks.

[dmix]

So make the database then with your foresight. I'm sure it would be extremely valuable. Prove me wrong if it is indeed public.

[adam_arthur]

There are hundreds of threads on twitter already analyzing the balance sheets of the public banks and ranking them based on risk levels.

First Republic has been singled out as one of the more vulnerable, and thus, likely to experience a bank run over the coming days.

Many pics of people withdrawing their money en masse from the bank earlier today: https://twitter.com/Dr_PhillipB/status/1634632068058722304?s...

[readthenotes1]

Or, a good way to force the bank owners to face reality.

Not so easy for BSDs, REITs, ponzi schemes, etc., but should be dreadfully easy for banks

[dmix]

Indeed. Which is what has diluted this conversation so heavily. Everyone wants to point at the tech Startups using SVB for boring banking as the why (and the "I told you VC was a bubble") instead of the 2008 style wall St gambling the bankers engaged in using tech startup money. The VCs might be responsible for the bank run but they aren't why the bank made stupid mortgage investments and ultimately failed.

[zamfi]

Not really. What SVB invested in was NOT the same kind of thing that tanked 2008 — in 2008, it was (basically) lies about the creditworthiness of MBS and default rates going through the roof.

SVB held a lot of MBS but it was a safe tranch — the risk was not of default, but rather of a market value decrease if interest rates rose.

Which they did.

Which would not have been a problem, because the full value would eventually be paid back in full, as long as the bank didn’t need to sell them.

Which they did, because more depositors were withdrawing funds than expected, because the investment market tanked and startups were drawing down funds.

Which resulted in selling a loss.

Which spooked VCs.

Which caused a run on the bank.

This was not a 2008-style “Wall St. gambling” problem — if anything it was a misunderstanding of risk, but not in the “wow, 50% annual returns, who cares how safe it is” sense.

[pickovven]

You think banks putting money in bonds is gambling?

If so, how do you suggest banks make money?

[kevinventullo]

Buying long-term bonds with short-term debt is risky, yes.

[oefrha]

They betted that interest rates would stay low long term. They were damn wrong and paid for it.