<!–

–>

March 19, 2023

This week, a lot of attention has been focused on the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank.  It is, in fact, a story of faulty accounting practices, poor government oversight, and the effects of government micromanaging markets at the same time that it fails in its oversight responsibilities. And you will be paying for it.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

Accounting Shenanigans

Over at the Wall Street Journal, William L. Silber explains this better than anyone, and in terms anyone who ever purchased a government bond can understand. They are safe. The problem is liquidity:

SVB held tens of billions of dollars in long-term government bonds. On its face, this may seem like a prudent investment for a bank, but Treasury securities are riskless only when held to maturity. If you have to sell before then, you can easily lose money if market rates have risen since you first purchased the bond. For example, buying a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond with a 2% coupon at par and holding it for 10 years earns you 2% per annum. But if you sell early and rates have jumped — say, 4% since you bought the bond — then the price will have declined to about $838 per $1,000 face value, meaning you incur a loss of $162 per $1,000 bond.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

The bank officers know, or certainly should know that is the case, and when the Federal Reserve increases interest those bonds are worth far less than an accounting system which shows it as a “held to maturity” item. You have incurred a loss if you have to cash it before maturity. But even so the income from the bond is listed as income, allowing the bank officers and managers to reward themselves handsomely for the “profits” on investment. Now you’d think federal regulators would know this, and they probably did, but looked the other way, for which they seem not to be held accountable.

SVB … held about $90 billion of its $120 billion bond portfolio in its held-to-maturity investment account. As interest rates rose over the past few years, SVB did little to hedge against its exposure to rate hikes. So when depositors came demanding cash, the bank had far less than its book showed. 

But that’s not all there is to the story.

Woke Lending and the Biden Role in It

Kim Strassel reports that the bank, at the inducement of the administration lent money to some 1550 companies in the areas of “climate technology and sustainability.” None of these were likely to be profitable, and they put the money SVB lent them on deposit in the bank which bought the government bonds, (Reminds me of Burl Ives song about the old lady who swallowed a fly.

Strassel continues: