I believe SVB was making an effort to reorganize their bond portfolio. Yes, they would lose money if they sold their low-yielding bonds. But, they were trying to make up for it by repurchasing bonds on the open market at the higher interest rate.

Although the economy has so far held up, the SVB scenario serves as a warning that Fed rate hikes are still having an impact. At times like this, investors must be vigilant about the next inevitability. You don't have to act on every forecast, therefore I'll advise you to hire a financial counselor. This has been my fallback position for a while.

I need advice on how to rebuild my portfolio and develop more successful tactics. Where can I find this coach?

Vivian Carol Gioia One of the finest portfolio managers in the field also widely recognized. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with and set up an appointment.

Thank you for sharing. it was easy to find her, then I scheduled a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.

In my opinion, some of these banks were attempting to restructure their bond portfolio, which involved selling their low-yielding bonds despite the potential loss, and compensating for it by buying higher-interest-rate bonds on the open market.

Investors should commit to reputable companies by holding steady or increasing investments during market downturns, as well-managed enterprises eventually rebound with renewed strength. Seeking guidance from a financial advisor can help identify opportune entry and exit points for long-term profits through stock appreciation. Working with an investment advisor can result in significant gains, as seen during the pandemic with a gain of $530k in just 8 months.

@@williamsbrown4026 That's fascinating. How can I contact your Asset-coach as my portfolio is dwindling?

@@adakkristinn My Financial adviser is ‘’Colleen Janie Towe’’ she’s highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market

@@williamsbrown4026 Thanks for the advice. The search for your coach was simple. I investigated her well before using her services. Considering her résumé, she appears competent.

Well, you were wrong.

I have learned to not trust corporations. I was badly hit by the '08 financial crisis. Since 2019, I've just been focused on investing through a financial advisor, and it has been paying off, and I'm never going back to banks full time.

I agree. The stock market could be a really great protection for your money. You don't really need to know how the market works in order to invest. In fact, you could lose your money if you go solo. I'm no expert myself, so what I do is that I invest through an advisor. There are many you could potentially find online. I personally work with Sharon Louise Count, and she's been spectacular. But there are also many others.

Put it all in Gold, over time it does better than the stock market

I have lots of confidence in USA banking system that it will collapse is guaranteed and needs resuscitation every few years 🌟😀

Gild is savety instrument... forever

We fail to realize that banks are commercial enterprises that are driven by greed as well. The over-leveraging of assets by banks starting in 2020 was one of the factors that led to SVB's collapse. I've never felt secure keeping a large sum of money in a bank. In other words, I invest through my financial advisor, reap the benefits, and then spend the money.

@@martingiavarini Would you mind telling me how to contact this specific coach using their service? You seem to have the solution, as opposed to the rest of us.

@@lipglosskitten2610 Christine Jane Mclean, a well-known person in her field, is my advisor. I advise doing more study on her credentials. She is a great resource for anyone looking to understand the financial market because of her extensive experience.

@@martingiavarini Thanks for the advice. The search for your coach was simple. I investigated her well before using her services. Considering her résumé, she appears competent.

Whatever you do, *DO* *NOT* give your money to the *Con* *Artists* in the comments section!

Indeed, the recent market downturn serves as evidence that a vast majority of individuals lacked a sufficient understanding of the underlying financial dynamics at play.

@@gracesdonny1532 I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day invt decisions being guided by a init-coach, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying off risk as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, coupled with the exclusive information/analysis they have, it's near impossible to not out-perform, been using a init-coach for over 2years+ and I've netted over 2.8million.

@@jenniferkyle6036 Please, who is the advisor that assists you with your investments

@@emilybrown2719 My licensed coach, Susan Agnes Hancock is a highly experienced and knowledgeable specialist in the financial market. She possesses exceptional expertise in portfolio diversification, and is widely acknowledged as an authoritative figure in her industry.

@@jenniferkyle6036 Researched her accreditation. She seem very proficient, I wrote her detailing my Fin-market goals and scheduled a call.

@Chris Young I have been exploring the possibility of utilizing advisors to help navigate the stock market during these uncertain times. However, I am still evaluating their potential effectiveness in providing the support I need.

@Chris Young I was considering changing my investment strategy and planning to sell certain positions. As my retirement is coming soon,I became increasingly stressed. After thoroughly researching Christy Vallen D'souza on internet, I concluded that I had made an informed decision. Thank you for this Pointer. She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her too.

Probably should have mentioned only 1 member of the board had a background in banking.

Basel framework is dumb. let banks do what they want

@@bobby7703isn’t this a result of not following the basel framework

Actually this wouldn't have helped since SVB had an LCR that was already higher than the upper range required under Basel III for SIFI banks. The bigger issue is that long term US bonds qualified (and still qualify) under Basel as highly liquid assets as long as they are marked as held to maturity, when in reality they should have been valued using mark to market. The real issue is that no one in the company or the outside regulators seemed to consider the fundamental issue of insurance rate risk, and SVB purchased no interest rate swaps to hedge their position which is incredibly unusual. The former and new risk management officers, COO, and CEO should be prevented from ever working in the financial sector again.

Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn't wokeness? Or ashamed to admit that your political views don't actually work in the real world?

and like u said, feds manufactured the low rates to begin with... this system is garbage

Just watched the Frontline documentary. This has been a long time coming.

What incentive do big banks have not to overextend themselves when the government will just bail them out...

But check their bonuses, for these there is no mistake…

Yup. And no regulation trump rolled back was going to stop that stupid decision

@Flow Kite - Taiba - Brazil Interest rate Swaps

The interest rate for long term was not near 0, the interest near 0 was the short term bonds. That is why the went to buy the long term ones. Stupid management.

@@huckfin1598 trump is not the president in 2023.

Yeah, because they were hoping they’d be able to crash a bank, and get bailed out for it. They were mad their money was tied up in a ten year treasury bond, and they wanted higher returns. So, naturally Yellen and the gang jumped in to bail out their wealthy buddies.

@@Fishmans If EVERYONE in the industry knew this then why did nearly all VC firms explicitly advised (demanded?) their portfolio companies to park their funds there?

Ok, look at the opposite. Where could SVB invest the cash deposits they could cash in without a loss to cover a bank deposit run? How can a bank function without getting profit on cash deposits to help cover loan obligations. Invested in low risk Bonds for profit, fed raised interest rates lowering the bond value, bonds dropped in value, run on bank, and bank sales bonds at a loss to cover the bank run. So, how do you level the playing field without limiting bank run withdrawal limits. Large depositors can manipulate bank runs to get their money out early leaving the other depositors holding the bag at the $250,000 insured level. Plus, we know in reality the fed can't cover every bank deposit in the country for $250,000.

I'm struggling to understand the idea behind that decision, looking at the industry they are most exposed to.

As a econ bachelor student trying to understand what is happening, wouldn't investing in gov. bonds be considered the safest of investments to put extra money in, since they had it in the increase of their deposits?

​@danilotoskoviasc as a student you should read the book called The creature of Jekyll Island. It will give all your answers.

Oversimplyfying it, it all boils down to the rate of liquid assets vs investments that a bank can have. Major banks were required to have more liquidity in case of a bank run but smaller banks weren't.

It's an incorrect assessment that has been floating around, primarily pushed by political pundits. While SVB was not subject to the higher liquidity coverage ratio standards, they still would have met them had they been subject to them. This is because of a flaw in Basel standards that consider long term US bonds as part of the "highly liquid assets" as long as they are marked as held to maturity. So the rule change did not contribute either directly or indirectly to SVB's downfall.

orange man bad

I love watching you all fight

geopolitical failure of assuming treasury is risk-free and liquid 😁

Yes. Please read the book called The creature of Jekyll Island. In this book many similar bank run cases are mentioned. I mean exactly the same. The bank pays the same dividend to show everything is Ok and then within the week the bank fails.

LENDER OF LAST RESORT Perhaps the most important part of the bailout, however, was that the money to make it possible was created-directly or indirectly-by the Federal Reserve System. If the bank had been allowed to fail, and the FDIC had been required to cover the losses, the drain would have emptied the entire fund with nothing left to cover the liabilities of thousands of other banks. In other words, this one failure alone, if it were allowed to happen, would have wiped out the entire FDIC! That's one reason the bank had to be kept operating, losses or no losses, and that's why the Fed had to be involved in the bail out. In fact, that was precisely the reason the System was created at Jekyll Island: to manufacture whatever amount of money might be necessary to cover the losses of the cartel. The scam could never work unless the Fed was able to create money out of nothing and pump it into the banks along with "credit" and "liquidity" guarantees. Which means, if the loans go sour, the money is eventually extracted from the American people through the hidden tax called inflation. That's the meaning of the phrase "lender of last resort." FDIC director Irvine Sprague, while discussing the press release which announced the Continental bail-out package, describes the Fed's role this way: The third paragraph ... granted 100 percent insurance to all depositors, including the uninsured, and all general creditors.... The next paragraph ... set forth the conditions under which the Fed, as lender of last resort, would make its loans.... The Fed would lend to Continental to meet "any extraordinary liquidity requirements." That would include another run. All agreed that Continental could not be saved without 100 percent insurance by FDIC and unlimited liquidity support by the Federal Reserve. No plan would work without these two elements.1

It might even be intentional. As in, the VCs intentionally tried to make the bank collapse in order to push the Fed to lower interest rates. There is even an email trail about it. Before the bank run, the VCs exchanged emails and held meetings with each other in which they told each other that the bank was in trouble. In truth, the bank was fine so long as there wasn't a bank run (and even more amusingly, the rise in Treasuries prices after the bank collapse might even have been enough to make the bank solvent again). Only after the VCs had their meetings together did they decide, en masse, to withdraw their deposits. It wasn't a case of one VC thinking the bank is in trouble and deciding he ought to move fast to save his money, it was a case of all them moving at the same time which actually made a bank collapse much more likely and made it more likely, without the Fed bailout that occurred, that the VCs would lose money. There seems to be some collusion going on.

So why should the government back these weak paperhands? Oh yeah, these same weaksauces donated money to the politicians and the election cycle will start up again next year. Better have those fat checks ready.

@@bobwinters5572 did the fed bailout every bank in 08 or allowed some to fail?

What is htm

​@@bobwinters5572 it was definitely intentional

Especially the bonuses for the executives who screwed up! 😂

Humankind will never learn from history. Without preventive regulation, banks will inevitably succumb to greed and corruption whether directly or indirectly. But those who have profited from this fact don’t care. They made their profits and its the customers who are paying for it. Of course this can happen for any large corporation. And please, do NOT bail out SVB! All that teachs them is that they can do whatever they want, run the bank to the ground, and start over again. Rinse and repeat. We will NEVER learn.

Can you elaborate on the “transfer of wealth” comment? FDIC funds come from insurance premiums from the banks themselves - not taxpayer money, unless I’m mistaken

@@andrewadventures1 Sure not a problem. From what I read and understand, the way the administration said this would be covered/paid for, would be fees that banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund. So that means anyone with funds under the $250k cap for FDIC insurance will pay higher banking fees. That's the sneaky transfer of wealth that is not being reported. So it will be a greater portion of the population paying for this.

@@andrewadventures1but the insurance premiums only apply to the $250k insured limit, right? I thought that was the case unless I’m mistaken as well.

As I understand ..The bail out help both the customers and the investors of the bank. It use tax money. ..In this case the help only to the customers of the bank. (as Yellen said that we wont do it again..to bail out) It will not use tax money.

@@pauleagle6281 As I stated above, from what I read and understand, the way the administration said this would be covered/paid for, would be fees that banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund. So that means anyone with funds under the $250k cap for FDIC insurance will pay higher banking fees. That's the sneaky transfer of wealth

You have insurance but you hope to never need it. The regulations were their to lower the risk of us ever needing it. Because when a bank fails, and the FDIC insurance or your local equivalent has to be used, it's everyone that is paying for it.

You're a fool if you think the FDIC has any money..👈🤔

Seriously why should you trust a institution that needs to be regulated in order to not toy with peoples money if I want to do that I would go to a stock broker and not the banker

Problem is majority of the money this bank owes is not insured.

@@Hans-gb4mv this is true but the moral hazard risk is low; it’s in the bank’s best interest not to fail. So again, regulations are meant to protect, not save the bank.

I am also confused about this... If u know about it.. Please do post it here

@@gamersplayers617 Older government bond yields are constant and their buying and selling prices move to reflect their marketable value TODAY when compared to newly issued similar bonds with higher interest yield brought to market today. "If you hold them to maturity" you get back exactly what cash you put in. If you must sell them in the market to raise cash now you get a huge haircut because your older lower interest bond must match the yield of new bonds to find a buyer. A bank with big value demand depositors putting most of its money into longer term low interest bonds is a very foolish operation.

When interest rates are raised bond prices decreases, vice versa. The Fed raised the Federal fund rates, that is the reason for the decline of the bond value which were held by SVB. They could not profit from the government bonds they held. After this, there were panic by investors and depositors who pulled back there money, which lead to the current crisis. Now according to this report, some large banks are acting as Lender of last resort to restore investors confidence, and improve liquidity.

Somebody said they would buy your bread in 3 years for full price, but you need the money now and it went moldy.

When you go deeper, every financial instrument is like a currency. Shares, bonds, and loans can all be bought and sold whenever.

Nearly every bank has most of their eggs in this very same basket -- US Treasuries. Treasuries are to banks what a savings account is to regular people. It's where they put their money when they don't know what else to do with it.

Did you actually watch the video? This was standard bank practice, UNTIL Covid hit and everyone was stashing their cash. What do you do with a massive amount of cash if you're a bank? You either loan it out, or you try to make money with it. Treasury's are USUALLY safe. But they got caught in a draw down, (people spending again in 2022) AND a rise in interest rates that is historically unprecedented. Their CEO should have seen this coming 3 months ago. Total negiligence.

I guess it’s a lesson that even with bonds you must diversify. I don’t know how these guys didn’t expect interest rate hikes when the federal interest rate was literally at 0%. Some people at SVB were brain dead

@@jasonmachacek895 Diversify into what? Global financial markets mean that nearly all national bonds move in lockstep with each other. When the Fed raises rates, so does every other major central bank and nearly every other minor central bank. In 2021 there were 19$ trillion in US federal securities while the total global market of similarly liquid securities was 32$ trillion. This is a deep and very liquid market, so it makes complete sense that investors seeking to reduce risk buy such securities. Every other type of financial investment carries a lot more risk that national gov't securities. Suppose a bank wanted to move $200 billion from US treasuries to some other country's bonds. To do so, given the scale of the markets and the transaction, they would need to buy up a huge portion of that other country's bonds (at a premium since they need to find a lot of willing sellers) and they still wouldn't escape the interest rate risk because central banks move rates in lockstep.

more like peter thief

multiple reports of him ordering his companies to pull all their money out at once, not very clear on why, might be related to treasury bonds losses but needs investigation for sure

LOL maybe he has short position on the bank? That'll be interesting situation.

what are you supposed to if you discover the thing?

people should research his involvement in neo nazi organizations lol

Yeah what regulation would have banned the purchase of treasuries as being too risky?

@@pandafox12 Didn't read the whole thing because it was almost 900 pages, but don't think it took out treasuries. It was a triple wamy I think. 1. Lower value on treasuries. 2. More withdrawal because of inflation. 3. More withdrawal because of lay offs in tech.

I think one of the biggest risks they had was having a customer pool largely consisting of one sector

Their problem weren't the bonds but lack of diversification on both customer base and investment portfolio. Also, ignoring risks coming from the above.

@@mohyla91 At first the government promoted bonds to finance government spending, then radically did a 180 to counter inflation. The fast shift created a issue for those who held those bonds.

Strange huh?

First time in internet?

@@nujin0093 its like they love loosing money

@@MrZlocktar you mean on?

This is intentional to destroy our current financial institutions and introduce cbdc

how to repay depositors then?

That works, until you have to sell them to pay back depositors. Most competent banks hedge their interest rate risks on longer term instruments, but SVB didn't even have a Risk Management Officer last year when things started going south.

@@dancahill9585 so SVB invested depositers money in the wrong place?

@@deathbyvanity1955 Not so much the wrong place as the wrong duration. If they had shorter term T-Bills and Notes, they could have paid off depositors. You lock up your Depositors money at 5, 10, 20 years and it gets tougher to sell when your depositors want to be paid back. They didn't properly hedge (insure) their investment. When Interest rates are low, and you load up on bonds that have an average maturity of 5 years, and interest rates rise, you lose money. There are a variety of products you could buy to hedge (insure) your bonds from interest rates going up, swaps, caps, collars, etc. They chose not to do that, although most Risk Management professionals would have told them that is the right thing to do. When interest rates rose, they were likely going to lose a lot of deposits in the bank, because tech startups often rely on low interest rates for funding. So they were going to have to payout money, and they weren't liquid enough to pay out money. So they were sitting there with a Bank that was likely to be in weaker shape if interest rates rose, and they did absolutely nothing to insure against that risk. They basically screwed the pooch.

That's correct. Which is why these assets are marked as "hold to maturity". If they're forced to sell HTM assets they realize capital losses on the bond. However, going forward the Fed has announced rules to allow banks to use the "par value" of their bonds as collateral rather than market value. This means they'll be allowed to borrow cash from the Federal reserve system without realizing those losses. SVB was just the unlucky bank to fail first - I don't forsee banks with similar liquidity problems to fail given the change in collateral rules.

It's not even enough in light of inflation. $250k circa 2008 (the last time FDIC was raised) is ~$350k now. That's $100k difference *not* being covered over the years.

Panic in clients after looking at SVB's regulatory reporting

FDIC insures up to $250K. Anyone with more than that could lose it.

@@blueeyesblueskiesahead1612 this bank was mostly used by businesses. It sounds like many of them had all their seed funding in this one bank. They could not afford to lose that. They need it to pay their wages during the time it takes to start turning a profit. Most of the deposits were over the insured figure. People were going to take it all put so that's why the bank collapsed. Point is that now all of it will be covered and if this had been done faster there never would have been the collapse in the first place.

Agreed in part. Looser regulations *and* an outdated FDIC contributed to this collapse. (FDIC should be ~$350k adj f/ inflation.) -Reduce investment risks: lower banking losses -Increase individuals' insurance: lower chance of a 'run' As much as we may not like government regulation, we need it in our financial system to keep greedy banks in check and to maintain economic stability. The argument that regulation 'hinders economic prosperity' holds little weight when a banking collapse risks tanking the entire economy. We learned very little from 2008.

I read in their team in website. some of these people are not bank people or just regular bankman. but majority of them is some Venture capital and generic angel investor. this entire team is super sus in my eye.

Not incompetence this was deliberate

And because they went woke

​​@@DRob-gq3ki That's so dumb. I'm always amazed by how people can have brains and still be stupid. That's like saying it collapsed because it went Papa smurf.

Do they not have the right to have access to their money??

@@DRob-gq3kistfu you dweeb

I had the same question. They certainly implied that in this video but gave no evidence of it. Notice the framing of smart Obama and stupid Trump; the WSJ is doing NPR levels of reporting here. It would appear that SVB simply believed the Fed when they said inflation was transitory, so the bought long term treasuries thinking they were safe.

Because the tires are too small and new to kick without management getting a chance to pull a Potemkin village first?

None of this makes sense at all. It sounds like sabotage to introduce cbdc.

Go to chase tomorrow and instead of taking out cash withdraw a bond thats u cant cash for 5 years… yielding below market interest

@@saturnteatree government bonds are guaranteed. Only opportunity loss if interest continue go up n not real loss. SVB suffer cuz the sold some thus suffer actual loss.

@@rizalmiehishamabdrahim4369 thats not the point if customers want to use their money to buy bonds they would have

@@saturnteatree the point is if government bonds are the only asset SVB have left, then use it instead selling it at loss to reimburse deposit holder as the cash generated will x enough. At least it can 1 to 1 exchange with govt bond held by SVB. Up to deposit holder how to utilize the bond.

After the '08 financial crisis, I've learned not to trust corporations. Since 2020, I've been allocating with an advis0r and have had no major losses, so I'm not going back to relying solely on banks.

People often overlook that banks are yield-driven institutions. I choose not to keep substantial sums in a bank but instead opt to engage with supervision, enjoy the benefits, and save for retirement.

Well said . Personally ,i diversify my investments across various markets with the guidance of my financial advisor, Stacey Lee Decker. I’m happy about this decision . This routine has enabled me to achieve attractive good returns through high dividend-yield stocks, digital assets, ETFs, and bonds.

With high inflation, I want to invest my idle cash. Thanks for sharing her impressive resume that I found online!

You’re welcome. I’ve made over six figures passively with Stacey Lee Decker’s guidance in a strong financial community. Market crashes doesn’t affect my returns.

100% intentional

While I don't normally support more government, the "option" wording is really nice. Government programs, should they need to exist, should only be voluntary ventures for others who can't or don't want private programs.

You could invest in Treasury bonds for a fixed yield, but those last for years and could be a loss if cashed before maturity

How about no, no to anything fed. Get rid of all fed programs

​@@butu2209 That's what led to this bank taking on too much risk... Some measure of Federal intervention is necessary to maintain a stable market/economy.

Nothing the bank could have done would help after it was hijacked by the woke mind virus.

Counter Points - Ryan Grimm talks about this. Roughly 200 heads of tech startups and venture capital groups all coordinated on Slack to pull their money out at once. Investigation is ongoing.

SVB was considered a "small" bank.

The high interest rates are causing this artificial bank collapse. They want another 2008 to consolidate power again. And so it begins again. Should have let the big banks fail but nooooo we need them. BS