The person who said SVB's situation is "idiosyncratic" is an employee of Wells Fargo - of course he would say that. Generally, banks run on confidence on the system - if any of the bank regulators or any of the major banks even flinch a little bit in front of the media right now, 10 more banks would probably fail tomorrow.
brookst|3 years ago
Like, for instance, that 56% of SVB’s assets were long term fixed interest rate vehicles, compared to, IDK, 28% of Wells Fargo’s? [0]
0. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-10/startu...
bitanarch|3 years ago
Let's say you're the person who's speaking for Wells Fargo at that moment - you absolutely don't want to give the public any reason to test whether 28% is safe or not. 3 months later, when people are no longer panicking, and cooler heads want to start discussing what're the safety measures to put onto banks - maybe. But seriously not right now. Let's say you quote the 28% number to say your bank is maybe safer than SVB - but the moment the reporter asks whether 28% is safe enough or not, or how about another bank that have more or less, you'd probably realize you shouldn't have said too much already.
So, at this moment... if you're a spokesperson for a bank or a bank regulator - "We're safe. SVB is a special case" is pretty much the only appropriate response right now.
SilasX|3 years ago
ignoramous|3 years ago
Replace Wells Fargo with SI or SVB and you have your answer (which is, it isn't how much they know about the economy, but what they're really cooking with it).
fallingknife|3 years ago