Banks are teetering as customers yank their deposits. Markets are seesawing as investors scurry toward safety. Regulators are scrambling after years of complacency.
The sudden collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the biggest bank failures since the Great Recession — have put the precariousness of lenders in stark relief. The problem for SVB was that it held many bonds that were bought back when interest rates were low. Over the past year, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates eight times. As rates went up, newer versions of bonds became more valuable to investors than those SVB was holding.
The bank racked up nearly $2 billion in losses. Those losses set off alarms with investors and some of the bank’s customers, who began withdrawing their money — a classic bank run was underway.
Even before SVB capsized, investors were racing to figure out which other banks might be susceptible to similar spirals. One bright red flag: large losses in a bank’s bond portfolios. These are known as unrealized losses — they turn into real losses only if the banks have to sell the assets. These unrealized losses are especially notable as a percentage of a bank’s deposits — a crucial metric, since more losses mean a greater chance of a bank struggling to repay its customers.
At the end of last year U.S. banks were facing more than $600 billion of unrealized losses because of rising rates, federal regulators estimated. Those losses had the potential to chew through more than one-third of banks’ so-called capital buffers, which are meant to protect depositors from losses. The thinner a bank’s capital buffers, the greater its customers’ risk of losing money and the more likely investors and customers are to flee.
But the $600 billion figure, which accounted for a limited set of a bank’s assets, might understate the severity of the industry’s potential losses. This week alone, two separate groups of academics released papers estimating that banks were facing at least $1.7 trillion in potential losses.

Midsize banks like SVB do not have the same regulatory oversight as the nation’s biggest banks, who, among other provisions, are subject to tougher requirements to have a certain amount of reserves in moments of crisis. But no bank is completely immune to a run.
First Republic Bank was forced to seek a lifeline this week, receiving tens of billions of dollars from other banks. On Thursday, the U.S. authorities helped organize an industry bailout of First Republic — one of the large banks that had attracted particular attention from nervous investors.
The troubles lurking in the balance sheets of small banks could have a large effect on the economy. The banks could change their lending standards in order to shore up their finances, making it harder for a person to take out a mortgage or a business to get a loan to expand.
Analysts at Goldman believe that this will have the same impact as a Fed interest rate increase of up to half a point. Economists have been debating whether the Fed should stop raising rates because of the financial turmoil, and futures markets suggest that many traders believe it could begin cutting rates before the end of the year.
On Friday, investors continued to pummel the shares of regional bank stocks. First Republic’s stock is down more than 80 percent for the year, and other regional banks like Pacific Western and Western Alliance have lost more than half their values.
Investors, in other words, are far from convinced that the crisis is over.

The above section contains excerpts from a lengthy article in The New York Times, which was heavily edited for brevity.

I’m loving the higher yields on cash. I retired six years ago, and this is the first time I’ve been able to get decent returns on cash, except for a brief period a couple years ago. As a result, I haven’t held as much in cash reserves as a retiree probably should. However, I’ve been able to load up on CDs yielding 5% and higher lately, in addition to our maximum limits on i-Bonds. When the new rates are announced for I-Bonds, I’ll decide whether to cash them out or continue holding. I’m not fooling with treasuries because the yields on CDs are higher and I’ve been laddering them so I’ve got cash available with regularity. Plus we’re keeping a healthy amount in Fidelity money markets yielding well over 4% right now. This has been a pleasant turn of events considering the total disaster bond funds have been for protecting assets.

@Crash. In 2008 I was busy running a business and I was ten years from retirement. I didn’t have all day to follow the markets every move and digest a hundred other dudes fears. The future of democracy wasn’t in question and the crazy caucus wasn’t threatening default. And I don’t remember members of Congress calling for a civil war. But if the worst happened I had a decade for the market the climb back and short of that,,,, to save more money. Of course things look extra volatile now. If we live long enough, this too shall pass. Best regards to you Crash.

On rather short notice, Cohanzick invited people to listen to David Sherman talk about the significance of “recent developments.” Reportedly, 90 people called in. No slides, just David at his desk talking through two topics and fielding questions.
Highlights:
1. none of his funds have exposure to banks or thrifts. Early in his career, at Leucadia, he was taught that this additional financial sector focus offered “incremental gains that were not worth the risk.”
2. in a “moral hazard” sort of way, institituions worldwide have “adopted an umbrella policy: avoid any failure at all cost.”
3. Sherman’s policy preference would be a 1-2 bps / year charge for insurance on accounts over $250k with an opt-out provision and some sort of preferential payments scheme (akin, I think, to what happens in a bankruptcy liquidation) to avoid runs on the bank. (James Mackintosh, in Friday's WSJ, speculates on investment regulations to pursue the same end; he suggests requiring banks to invest only in short-term Treasuries as backing for regular deposits, with greater flexibility for special high-yield accounts.)
4. He believes interest rates will remain higher for longer than commonly expected, unless the fed has to accommodate a systemic risk. A fed “pivot” now would be “ a bad sign regarding speculation and future inflation.”
5. the commercial real estate market, which is reliant on floating rate securities, is a major and generally unrecognized risk. High quality lenders like BlackRock “are handing the keys back to the bank.” Eventually the government will need to pursue a solution like the Resolution Trust (1989-1995) to work to resolve the savings & loan crisis.
6. Q: is the banking system close to melt-down? A: No. With the exception of a few incidents involving insolvent micro banks, there are no “FDIC-regulated banks where uninsured depositors didn’t get their money back.”
7. Q: are you positive on high yield this yield? A: we don’t speculate but “In general, active HY will outperform stocks over the next couple years based on valuations.”
8. Q: has the risk-return equation become more compelling? Are you playing offense or defense now? A: “I love this question. Compliance hates it. We love markets like this, even if they’re frustrating, difficult or stressful because they create volatility and volatility creates opportunity. Things were more shaky a year ago ... we’ve become more offensive over the past several months Dry powder not diminished but new money is getting invested at substantially higher returns. Dry powder (at year’s end his funds were 30% and 70% “dry powder”) reflects view that we’ll have more opportunities and we will not be forced to take duration risk. We’re avoiding highly stressed or distressed issuers whose business model is questionable relative to other opportunities. We think there will be more of opportunities; commercial RE will raise its ugly head to create them.”
9. Q: where do you get such great ideas? A: swiped one from a student in my Global Value Investing class at NYU. (Roughly.)
 
10. Q: Has the opportunity set changed since 1/1/2023? A: "We focus on business model, the group tried to be disciplined in our credit work in all periods though everyone occasionally gets out of their lane. We’re focusing on staying at the highest level of the capital structure. Social media makes everything worse. Investors do less work, act more in reaction to events, and since it’s easier to move money, it’s also easier to over-react. Across portfolios, we have the highest level of leveraged loan ownership in years. LLs significantly higher return than the bonds, assuming no rate collapse.”
David either reads the board or has a news alert set for his name, so I’m confident that if I’ve materially misrepresented his words, he’ll help guide us back to the light.
For what that’s worth, David

Agree with @Observant1 that 2008 was MUCH worse! Nevertheless, investors need to stay calm and stick to their plan (asset allocation) and not get influenced by the media/news. The worst is panic and make bad choices.
I have been deploying my cash this weeks to short-term bond funds, individual stocks, and CDs. As more T bills mature this year they will invest in intermediate-term bonds. If US dollar continues to fall, we will buy European stocks again. Our EM exposure has been reduced substantially in recent years given the heightened geopolitical conflicts.

He was almost a superhero at Matthews. I found performance to be mediocre. SFGIX. 10 years, as of tonight: +3.47%. Ya, it just was not worth it to keep my money in there.

@Crash I'm not sure what more you could expect from Seafarer. The fund's beaten 91% of its emerging market fund peers in the past five years and 88% in the past ten with less volatility and downside risk. That's a strong record. It sounds like you have more of a problem with emerging market funds as a fund category than you have with Seafarer specifically. You can't expect Seafarer to behave like the S&P 500 or Treasury bonds if it isn't designed to do that.

Well, since we don't know Crash's age and financial situation today as compared to the 2008 crash, we don't know if he can handle it. That was--hard to believe--15 years ago. It's a mistake to assume everyone should keep a stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on during a difficult period. Circumstances and risk tolerances differ.
This is why, I should add, financial planners exist. A good one can assess your financial situation and risk tolerance and tell you, look your goals are X and you have this much cushion for losses, so you can afford to wait out this volatile market. Or, they can say, you're way overexposed to stocks, given your age and situation. You should dial back your exposure. I presume most people here are self-directed, though.

Honestly, a roller coaster ride like I can't remember, ever before.
I only began investing in 2003. So maybe a bunch of you are more well versed in it all.

A few years from now you may look back and wonder why you didn’t take advantage of this volatility.

Grandeur Peak's negligent behavior has been discussed many times before in this forum. Just repeatedly issuing mea culpa via fund manager commentary is not good enough. There is no change in Grandeur Peak's behavior. Fool me once shame on you and all that.
I have not looked at First Republic's asset mix but Silicon Valley Bank? Silicon Valley Bank has the highest percentage of long term securities in its assets of all the banks in the country. Every individual investor (incl those in this forum) has been worried about Duration risk for the past 10 years but not Silicon Valley Bank. Hopefully, we get to see someday the Duration risk (or the lack of) in the non-equity portion of its CEO's personal portfolio. Interestingly, even Signature bank ranked 45 places higher than Silicon Valley Bank for Duration risk ( Signature Bank allegedly was playing games with the info it was providing NY regulators, leading to its demise). But back to Grandeur Peak. There is no alleged material fraud in Silicon Valley Bank for a forensic accountant to unearth - its demise is from sheer incompetence (or moral hazard at worst) in plain sight. Incompetent (negligent) fund manager picking incompetent portfolio company management, that is all we have here.
Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts fund has 4.6% in First Republic and 2.3% in Silicon Valley Bank- as of Oct 31, per their website.
I am sorry for coming out strong on this fund company - I will go to temple and seek forgiveness. Every time we make excuses for active fund managers' repeated failings we are failing innocent investors who visit this forum. I will go back to holding my silence and not posting here.

You are correct it was years. Hospital fortunately switched to Fidelity

@sma3, I learned a lot about the so-called state insurance then!
First, our money was tied up for 5-6 years, not months. Rates offered were below high m-mkt rates at the time. So, only opportunity lost, not nominal money.
I called our state insurance department and said that I wanted my money back. They said, not so fast. States' insurance departments were coordinating the rescue and I will just have to be patient. BUT, if I wanted my money right away, I could take the 40% haircut offer on the table. Well, I "decided" to be patient.
By now I have personal experiences with 1 bank failure and 2 insurance failures. Only the FDIC is prompt in setting quick up to the limit. No experience with the SIPC, but from the news, I think that they also take their time while brokerage positions held may be frozen.

@LewisBraham
When I read your comment, even before your link, I immediately thought of Olstein and his funds. I stumbled across him in 2004 and thought his approach made a lot of sense. Unfortunately I sold it several years later as since then it has generally outperformed the SP500 and value indices, although with larger draw downs.
Most people don't think about this type of analysis until after they needed it. But I can see why it is a hard pitch to make as he doesn't fit into a nice little box.

”This move in oil is rather unsettling.”
Lots of stuff is unsettling, including the escalating U.S. / Russia tensions. Might have played a role in today’s equity sell-off.
Oil is something I’m unable to understand or invest in. There have always been huge cyclical swings in price that are hard to predict or understand. Go back 30 years and the same was true. So many factors affect price: policies of OPEC members, fracking (or lack thereof), environmental regulation, trade embargos, and of course economic currents as Lewis notes.
Thanks @yogibearbull. Your understanding of the insurance business far exceeds mine.

Insurance companies have the SAME HTM & AFS accounting issues. But runs in them are more difficult, but possible - years ago, MBL of NJ in our 403b plan did have a run and collapsed in days. Our money was locked in at lower rates for several years but it was unlocked eventually.
But BRK is different from most insurance companies and it has lot of other exposure too. Still, in a banking debacle and on a down market day, BRK is down too.

AndyJ is right about trend following. Managed futures funds have trouble adjusting during inflection points when trends suddenly shift. One thing I wonder if the smartest managers aren't doing is adjusting the duration of their signals. Markets move more quickly in either direction today than I imagine twenty or thirty years ago, so it might not be worth following the market leaders for instance in the past year but rather the past three months or even shorter. Makes it trickier to tell what is a real signal and what is just a head fake.

@WABAC

But the chance for an average saver to get a safe return of 5-6% on their money will raise Maggie Thatcher from the dead, legitimize neocolonial revanchism, bring back the Cold War order, destroy unions that no longer exist, and, wait for it, throw people out of work.

Never said any of that, merely pointed out as the article did that the Volcker cure for inflation wasn't all that, and had definite negative consequences. Nor can it be said that only one group of people wants lower rates. Most poor people in the U.S. have little to no savings to collect interest on, and actually have more variable-rate credit card debt that increases their burden as rates rise:https://bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-report/#over-1-in-3

Over a third (36 percent) of people have more credit card debt than emergency savings, the highest percentage in 12 years of Bankrate asking this survey question. In comparison, 22 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2022, while 28 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2020, before COVID-19 began to affect the U.S.

Ultimately, rate cuts are economically stimulative while raising rates constricts. There needs to be consideration on both sides of the consequences. And you yourself by acknowledging labor has little power today compared to the 1970s have pointed out the reason we shouldn't perhaps be too fixated on raising rates too high.
Given the choice, I would rather see targeted fiscal stimulus than monetary stimulus to help the specific areas of our economy that are struggling via government programs, and tax hikes to constrict things when we get overstimulated. But there are obvious political roadblocks to fiscal stimulus. Interest rates are a blunt instrument that helps and hurts multiple parties.
As for SVB, I am fine with making all depositors whole just so long as the rich people getting bailed out stop complaining about the "moral hazard" of helping poor people. Moreover, the capital standards from Dodd Frank need to be restored and SVB should be nationalized, and the government collect all future profits to give back to taxpayers.

Apparently something broke in the banking sector not just in US…
Excerpt from article:

In recent days, a crisis in the financial sector has centered around regional banks as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed, both casualties of poor management in the face of eight interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in the last 12 months. Wednesday morning attention turned to the big banks with shares of Credit Suisse hitting an all-time low.
Saudi National Bank, Credit Suisse’s largest investor, said Wednesday it could not provide any more funding, according to a Reuters report. This comes after the Swiss lender said Tuesday it had found “certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting” for the years 2021 and 2022.
As Credit Suisse dragged down the European Bank sector, U.S. big bank shares declined in sympathy. Citigroup and Wells Fargo shed 3%, while Goldman Sachs and Bank of America fell 2%. The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund lost 2.9% in premarket trading, giving up its 2% pop on Tuesday.
Regional Banks, whose rebounded helped lift sentiment for the broader market on Tuesday, fell back into the red again. The SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) was down 3% in the premarket, led by losses in Old National Bancorp, Zions Bancorp and Fifth Third Bancorp. To be sure, shares of First Republic Bank were clinging to gains.

https://cnbc.com/2023/03/14/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
From Reuters:

Credit Suisse on Tuesday published its annual report for 2022 saying the bank had identified "material weaknesses" in controls over financial reporting and not yet stemmed customer outflows.
Switzerland's second-biggest bank is seeking to recover from a string of scandals that have undermined the confidence of investors and clients. Customer outflows in the fourth quarter rose to more than 110 billion Swiss francs ($120 billion).

https://reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-shares-drop-fresh-record-low-cds-widen-2023-03-15/
Oakmark funds sold their remaining shares last week.

@hank, I grew up with the irresolute response to the last inflation. I don't want to spend what could be the rest of my life going through that again

@WABC -You weren’t pleased with Nixon’s 1970 wage & price freeze? :)
I was pretty irresponsible with money 50 years ago, so I doubt any Fed policy would have helped. Fortunately, we had a strong labor union where I worked and so wages kept up with inflation. With annual raises based on seniority, I stayed ahead of inflation. I do not remember a lot of public yelling and screaming about it in the 70s. It crept up on us slowly; started creeping up bit by bit in the 60s. Once we went off the gold standard (‘71) it quickened. For the most part we took inflation in stride as part of life. In Michigan the “Big Three” auto plants were still humming. The unionized workers there did very well. Could afford to own nice new vehicles and suburban homes. Some even owned second homes in the northern reaches of the state.
While I contributed automatically to a 403B from my pay, I wasn’t really attuned to investing. But left alone the global equity fund (run by John Templeton then) did quite well and paved the way for the future. A gold & silver craze developed in the late 70s. There was tremendous media hype as the price of gold soared from $35 a decade earlier to around $800 an ounce. I grabbed off a couple K-Rands near the top and watched it slide to $400-$500 over a few years before selling. It was the best lesson in investing I ever received. And the Hunt Brothers somehow managed to buy enough silver back than to push the price over $50 an ounce - an astronomical height it has never reclaimed.
Whatever we’re facing now by way of inflation is mild compared to the 60s thru 80s period. And I think the Fed for reasons I don’t fully understand is engaged in some serious overkill. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater might apply.
A blast from the past
”With inflation on the rise and a gold run looming, Nixon’s administration coordinated a plan for bold action. From August 13 to 15, 1971, Nixon and fifteen advisers, including Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, Treasury Secretary John Connally, and Undersecretary for International Monetary Affairs Paul Volcker (later Federal Reserve Chairman) met at the presidential retreat at Camp David and created a new economic plan. On the evening of August 15, 1971, Nixon addressed the nation on a new economic policy that not only was intended to correct the balance of payments but also stave off inflation and lower the unemployment rate.
The first order was for the gold window to be closed. Foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold; in effect, the international monetary system turned into a fiat one. A few months later the Smithsonian agreement attempted to maintain pegged exchange rates, but the Bretton Woods system ended soon thereafter. The second order was for a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to check inflation. This marked the first time the government enacted wage and price controls outside of wartime. It was an attempt to bring down inflation without increasing the unemployment rate or slowing the economy. In addition, an import surcharge was set at 10 percent to ensure that American products would not be at a disadvantage because of exchange rates.
Shortly after the plan was implemented, the growth of employment and production in the United States increased. Inflation was practically halted during the 90-day wage-price freeze but would soon reappear as the monetary momentum in support of inflation had already begun. Nixon’s new economic policy represented a coordinated attack on the simultaneous problems of unemployment, inflation, and disequilibrium in the balance of payments. The plan was one of the many prescriptions written to cure inflation, which would eventually continue to rise.”
Source

@WABC. I have posted before about our experiences in the last time of very high inflation. We were young, sorta dumb, childless, without any equity investments, had money in the bank and rental properties in the best( luckiest ) location possible. In retrospect it was all blind luck. It was the best of times as we spent three years sailing in the sea of Cortez. The bigger take away from this is that people’s circumstances are highly individualized. And the ability to be flexible and open can be very powerful. And be lucky.