bigredfish
Known around here
Record Bank Run Drained A Quarter, Or $42BN, Of SVB's Deposits In Hours, Leaving It With Negative $1BN In Cash
www.zerohedge.com
And now the 64 trillion dollar question: was the bank run sparked by the bank's attempted capital raise - which followed a modest $1.8 billion in losses as the bank sold off its AfS holdings to boost its liquidity - or was it the result of an external influence? What we mean by this is that as reported yesterday, several prominent venture capitalists - such as Peter Thiel - advised their tech startups to withdraw money from Silicon Valley Bank on Thursday. Would the bank run have happened if it wasn't for their urging? Or another question: why would some of the VC luminaries actively encourage a bank run? Yesterday we proposed one possible answer.
Of course, Jamie, who has suddenly emerged as a key figure in the Jeff Epstein scandal alongside Jes Staley, knows this, and would be delighted with an outcome that kills two birds with one stone: take his name off the front pages and also make JPMorgan even bigger. Actually three birds: remember it was JPM that started that "Not QE" Fed liquidity injection in Sept 2019 when the bank "suddenly" found itself reserve constrained. We doubt that JPM would mind greatly if Powell ended his rate hikes and eased/launched QE as a result of a bank crisis, a bank crisis that Jamie helped precipitate.
Record Bank Run Drained A Quarter, Or $42BN, Of SVB's Deposits In Hours, Leaving It With Negative $1BN In Cash | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
And now the 64 trillion dollar question: was the bank run sparked by the bank's attempted capital raise - which followed a modest $1.8 billion in losses as the bank sold off its AfS holdings to boost its liquidity - or was it the result of an external influence? What we mean by this is that as reported yesterday, several prominent venture capitalists - such as Peter Thiel - advised their tech startups to withdraw money from Silicon Valley Bank on Thursday. Would the bank run have happened if it wasn't for their urging? Or another question: why would some of the VC luminaries actively encourage a bank run? Yesterday we proposed one possible answer.
And while such a course of action by venture capitalists would be understandable, if ethically questionable, what is perhaps more notable is what Bloomberg reported earlier, citing The Infromation: it wasn't just the Peter Thiels of the world:
Let us get this straight: the largest US commercial bank was actively soliciting the clients of one of its biggest competitors, and the 16th largest US bank, knowing full well deposit flight would almost certainly lead to the collapse of a bank which courtesy of fractional reserve banking, had only modest cash to satisfy deposit demands: certainly not enough to meet $42 billion in deposit outflows.
Of course, Jamie, who has suddenly emerged as a key figure in the Jeff Epstein scandal alongside Jes Staley, knows this, and would be delighted with an outcome that kills two birds with one stone: take his name off the front pages and also make JPMorgan even bigger. Actually three birds: remember it was JPM that started that "Not QE" Fed liquidity injection in Sept 2019 when the bank "suddenly" found itself reserve constrained. We doubt that JPM would mind greatly if Powell ended his rate hikes and eased/launched QE as a result of a bank crisis, a bank crisis that Jamie helped precipitate.
