After the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Federal Reserve used monetary policy to fight the pandemic, and household savings deposits reached about $1 trillion, with broad money M2 growing by over 25%. Many people were bullish on the US stock market, believing that these huge amounts of idle cash would one day enter the market as stocks. Obviously, many people forgot the double-entry accounting principle - for every credit, there must be a corresponding debit.
For Silicon Valley Bank, with deposits of over $100 billion, all of its depositors are the largest and bluest venture capital companies and technology newcomers in Silicon Valley, including Peter Thiel's Founder's Fund. Since the Federal Reserve interest rate is zero, they bought the world's safest assets - short-term US bonds, and even earned some interest. However, the good times did not last. By the end of 2021, US inflation began to soar, and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy began to lose control, causing short-term US bond yields to soar, leading to the biggest US bond market crash in over 200 years in 2022. Suddenly, the world's safest asset became the storm's eye, and the US bond holdings in Silicon Valley Bank's account began to bleed. Even if they haven't sold yet, accounting requires mark-to-market valuation. The Silicon Valley market price loss has exceeded its total equity.
Rating agencies wasted no time in preparing to downgrade Silicon Valley Bank's rating. However, deposit rates remain close to zero. Americans don't want to be harvested like this, so they began to withdraw their bank deposits and buy money market funds that now yield nearly 4%. If Silicon Valley Bank significantly raises its deposit interest rates, its interest margin income will be reduced, and it will have to pay additional liquidity. At this time, Silicon Valley found itself in a dilemma. Investment bank Goldman Sachs saw commission opportunities and began to suggest that Silicon Valley sell part of its US bond portfolio and sell $2.25 billion of its stocks to replenish capital. This idea was really bad: data disclosed during the roadshow showed that Silicon Valley's customers were withdrawing large sums of money, causing a significant loss of deposits. If it weren't for the roadshow disclosure, the market wouldn't know the details. Now, the market believes that Silicon Valley is about to go bankrupt, accelerating the run on the bank. Since Silicon Valley's customers are all big clients with deposits far exceeding $250,000, more than 95% of Silicon Valley Bank's deposits are not covered by the US deposit insurance limit of $250,000.
There must be many other regional banks using similar methods for cash management. Today, they are bound to face the same risks as short-term US bond yields soar. This also explains why the market unilaterally believes that the Federal Reserve will soon stop raising interest rates. Their actions determine their fate. Of course, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy must now consider the impact on the US banking industry. Chairman Powell has recently been saying that he needs to "consider the totality of data." Last night, the market hid in the short-term US bonds out of safe haven demand, causing yields to plummet.
Many people continue to be indifferent to the historic inversion of the US bond yield curve. In fact, the inversion of the yield curve is a distortion of risk, which is not sustainable. Its reversal will cause a cataclysmic event. Although long-term risks are stable, short-term risks are high. We need to survive the short term to see the long term. "But such long-term predictions are of no use for the present. In the long term, we are all dead. Economists have it too easy, because their work is useless. At the onset of a storm, economists can only tell us that the storm will pass, and that the ocean will be calm again." - Keynes
Now, the global market is concerned: Will Silicon Valley Bank be rescued? Many experts believe that if the US regulatory authorities do not intervene, Silicon Valley will become the second Lehman, which will bring down the US financial system. The market needs to see three measures for rescue: 1) Small depositors with less than $250,000 should receive full payment; 2) Depositors with deposit insurance limits over $250,000 should receive partial payment, and it should be ensured that in the future, depending on the sale of Silicon Valley Bank assets, these large depositors can receive most of their payment (such as 80%); 3) Let one of the four major US banks take over Silicon Valley Bank.
The problem now is that less than 3% of Silicon Valley Bank deposit balances are below $250,000. Others are large and blue, including Silicon Valley venture capital companies such as Sequoia Capital, Paradigm, a16z, and GGV Capital. Many Silicon Valley companies involve funds ranging from hundreds of millions to tens of billions. No wonder Silicon Valley was squeezed for more than $40 billion before being taken over. Under such pressure, almost no bank can survive.
Unfortunately, US law may not allow it. If the Federal Reserve intervenes, the Silicon Valley crisis must meet the definition of "systemic risk" and there must be "broad-based" risks, and it cannot only benefit a particular company. At the same time, the Federal Reserve cannot intervene in bankrupt companies that have already been taken over. The US Treasury cannot use unlegislated funds without congressional approval, and now there is no money left.
In the end, it seems that FDIC has to bear the burden alone. The process of selling Silicon Valley assets to pay large depositors has already begun. It is reported that hedge funds have offered to buy Silicon Valley Bank's deposits at 60%-80% of their value. In times of crisis, Silicon Valley assets can be realized for 60%-80% of their value, and after the panic in the US market subsides, the price should be even higher. After all, US Treasury bonds trade up to $650 billion every day.
Will the Federal Reserve open the floodgates again because of Silicon Valley Bank? In fact, Silicon Valley's bankruptcy is precisely due to the Fed's unbridled printing of money, which caused a sharp drop in US bond yields and a surge in savings deposits. If money is printed again using Silicon Valley as an excuse, the Fed's only remaining credibility will be gone.
When Lehman collapsed, its assets were worth $640 billion, and its associated derivative contract amounted to trillions of dollars. It was indeed a decisive moment. However, the assets of Silicon Valley Bank this weekend were only $220 billion, and it still held a large number of highly liquid US Treasury bonds.
Previously, the market believed that the US economy would not decline, but the Federal Reserve's decision to slow down the pace of interest rate hikes, and even stop them soon, made the combination of economic and policy expectations logically hard to convince. During this cycle of rate hikes, Federal Reserve officials maintained a dovish stance until the end of 2021, believing that inflation would be a "transitory, temporary phenomenon." They then changed their tune in 2022, saying that this round of inflation will be "higher and longer." In both recent history and ancient times, the Federal Reserve's forecasting record seems to be lacking.
Overnight, the two-year US Treasury yield skyrocketed by more than 5%, the first time since 2007. The degree of inversion of the US Treasury yield curve is the most severe since 1981. Many people mistakenly believe that the inverted US Treasury yield curve is terrifying. In fact, it is more terrifying when the yield curve returns to normal from inversion because this is the moment when the US economy officially enters into a recession.
Follow me and you'll get more interesting investment information! Plus, I'll share real-time trading strategies during trading hours, including stocks, gold , crude oil , forex, cryptocurrencies, and more!
