Unbelievable "analysis."
I subscribed to Forbes years ago.
This publication has really declined over time.

I bought some SCHW at 51+ this morning. I had considered it on Friday but decided to see how the weekend went. It touched 45 early this morning, but I spent some time looking for data and opinions before pulling the trigger.
I'm somewhat nervous about taking this position, because this is not an industry I've followed (even though I've had some BAC for years).
Everything in the financial industry has been tarnished. I considered adding to my AXP position (down about 10% in the last month) but don't really see this as a big buying opportunity (yet).
CNBC has had some interesting guests through the day. Brad Gerstner of Altimeter Capital for one.
The world of big banks seems much more complicated than the banking issues most of us have encountered in our lives. So their "governance/regulation" is pretty complex.
Like many other "large" issues in our economy, there are often no easy answers.
David

Thanks @LewisBraham - Didn’t intend to sound critical of anyone. I read Grantham quite a bit 12-18 months ago and learned a great deal from him. Helped prepare me for the onslaught later on in mid ‘22. It’s just that watching all the different global & domestic assets move around today highlights the value of a broad perspective.
To your later remark - I actually considered attaching a proviso to the S&P remark along the lines of what you mention. Will we be a democracy in 35 years? Will workers still have the means to invest in the S&P or anything else? Will the atmosphere be fit to breath?

Actually, Grantham's models generally include other kinds of stocks besides the S&P 500 and other asset classes in general, although he doesn't always talk about them in more macro interviews. So, I wouldn't call his view of investing narrow.
That said, I'm not sure how anyone can say with absolute confidence that "over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine." That assumes market, economic and political history just repeats. I wonder if someone asked you, "Do you think over the next 35 years the U.S. will remain the dominant global economic superpower?" if your answer would be as confident. And the two questions regarding future market performance and national performance are connected.

I think in Grantham's case, given the models he uses, it's safe to assume he is referring to U.S. large caps, i.e., something akin to the S&P 500 or Russell 1000.

And pity those with such a narrow view of investing. Unless you’re 25 and DCA’ng into a 401K every couple weeks. Over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine.

Depositors with big cash holdings are – reasonably – expected to be aware of the risks and spread their cash around several institutions. Businesses backed by venture capital, such as the customers of SVB, ought to have been advised how to manage their liquid holdings.
... the sight of depositors being made whole ... provides a disincentive for both depositors and banks to be prudent. There’s no reward here for SVB customers who banked more carefully.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/13/svb-crisis-backstop-revives-the-specter-of-moral-hazard/bb2731c6-c188-11ed-82a7-6a87555c1878_story.html
As I wrote above, I take a darker view. It's not just the presence of reward (higher returns) but the absence of punishment that's a problem with risky deposits. There's no penalty (loss) for large depositors to be reckless with their savings.
However, it's not every bank failure that gets protection. It's not automatic. It's just the banks that take the most outrageous risks and lose that are directly protected by the government. On infrequent occasions, uninsured depositors lose money. That happens when a failed bank is not TBTF, but the the FDIC can't find a buyer that will assume all of the bank's deposit liabilities.
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/
This unequal treatment has its own problems, as discussed in this 1990 paper (near the end of the quoted section):

A good first step... would be to cease the present practice of fully paying out uninsured depositors when bank failures occur. This practice, of course, is de facto insurance [emphasis in original] ... Paul Duke, Jr. reports that "many [bankers] support proposals to give depositors a 'haircut' a 10% of 15% loss on deposits above the [FDIC insurance limit] — when a bank fails. Two of banking's biggest guns, Citicorp Chairman John Reed and Chase Manhattan President Thomas Lebrecque, support variations of this proposal (WSJ, Aug 3, 'S9, A16). ... Such a shift in policy should not encounter insuperable opposition since it falls far short of enforcing the insurance limitations which legally already exist.
Since the Continental Illinois bankruptcy the federal banking and S&L authorities have adopted a too—big—to-fail policy. The policy is closely related to the unwritten policy of rescuing any faltering American corporation if it is large enough. The most notable cases so far have been Continental Illinois and Chrysler.
...In the beginning this de facto extension of coverage only applied to the banks and S&Ls which were large enough to have a wide financial influence. ... only the eleven largest banks were originally covered, hence the designation "too-big—t o—fail". The government however was rightfully criticized for this policy on the grounds that it put smaller banks at a competitive disadvantage, so, to correct this inequity the government has for several years made it a general policy to pay off all depositors in both large and small failed banks.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10130&context=etd

I say let SVB fail &stick to the $250k cap..Sickens me that these bank execs take huge risks & suffer none of the consequences. And love that they paid bonuses out just hours before the collapse. Gov't should clawback all that & all the bonuses & compensation from those in charge for the past 5 years at least. Only way they're gonna learn is if you hit them in their pockets instead of us little guys.

@hank With a lot of threads today, tis like reading a short book here.
I'll add this back from a previous post regarding the 2008 TARP program.
Note: these 'loans' did carry interest and was expected to be repaid to the Treasury. The Treasury did have a profit when all was settled and done from the various loans.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was instituted by the U.S. Treasury following the 2008 financial crisis. TARP stabilized the financial system by having the government buy mortgage-backed securities and bank stocks. From 2008 to 2010, TARP invested $426.4 billion in firms and recouped $441.7 billion in return.
---Perhaps the Treasury will have some profit for the efforts. :) I don't know the terms of the 'bail' monies.
Flashback: During the GFC, Bloomberg and CNBC became all-nighters. No info-mercials, etc. 24 hours of everything! SO, if what started Friday could have become systemic; then the actions taken were intended to deliver a full punch here and now. One can only imagine the meetings, phone calls and data crunching of banking records/data. Although, I watched Ms. Yellen this morning state that there would not be a bailout.
NOW, how about a full audit (any organization that is involved with the any form of banking in this country, plain and clear text without any of the cockeyed and perverted auditing standards that have taken place over the years) available to the public every month, online for free.
Overview: Still better than China, and that we have a 'form' of 'rule of law', as perverted as it may be.
Good evening.

@catch22- As you would know from our conversations over the years, I have no tolerance for government rescue of institutions or businesses that get into trouble due to stupidity or greed.
But it's painfully obvious that in today's financial environment there are certain types of businesses that have a need to maintain very large amounts of cash which is readily available for deployment on short notice.
It's absurd to leave our entire financial and banking system open to the inevitable mismanagement which is guaranteed to occur from time to time, and which then repeatedly threatens the entire financial system. I believe that we need to provide a safe place for businesses to easily and safely deposit large amounts of money without requiring those businesses to fend for themselves in managing those deposits.
To characterize such an arrangement as a "government takeover/nationalization" is ridiculous, when for all practical purposes that is exactly what the government is now forced to do in any case, to save the rest of the system from self-destruction.
< end rant />

How can anyone trust Wells Fargo after multiple trangressions committed over many years?

Although it could be inside information, more likely the previous decline before the SVB news had to do with rate hikes and Wells Fargo layoffs:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3945059-why-did-wells-fargo-stock-drop-today-fed-chairs-comments-hit-bank-stocks-hard

Bank stocks, particularly, were hit hard, with the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index (BKX) slid 3.9%. Among the biggest U.S. banks, Wells Fargo (WFC) sank the most, -4.7%.
While banks often benefit from higher interest rates, in that they are able to collect more interest from the loans they provide, the demand for loans declines as it becomes more expensive to borrow. With higher rates, specifically, demand for mortgages also tumbles. And if the Fed tightening leads to a recession, defaults on loans will increase.
Wells Fargo (WFC) has been one of the biggest mortgage lenders for years, but is scaling back its presence in the sector. The bank reportedly laid off hundreds of mortgage bankers this week and it aims to create a more focused home lending business.
At the same time, banks will also be pressured to pay more interest on deposits as account holders shop for the best rate.

I just received this from First Republic Bank:

To Our Valued Clients,
In light of recent industry events, the last few days have caused uncertainty in the financial markets. We want to take a moment to reinforce the safety and stability of First Republic, reflected in the continued strength of our capital, liquidity and operations.
Our capital remains strong. Our capital levels are significantly higher than the regulatory requirements for being considered well capitalized.
Our liquidity remains strong. In addition to our well-diversified deposit base, we continue to have access to over $60 billion of available, unused borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank.
We are here to fully serve you. We stand ready to process transactions and wires, fund loans, answer questions and serve your overall financial needs — as we do every day.
For almost 40 years, we have operated a simple, straightforward business model centered on taking extraordinary care of our clients. We have successfully navigated various macroeconomic and interest rate environments, and today we have among the industry’s highest rates of client satisfaction and retention.

FWIW...

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/jeremy-grantham-stock-market-bubble-fed-horror-show-interest-rates-2023-3
Business News
Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham says the stock bubble is still deflating and the market will go down in 2024 amid a ‘horror show’ from the Fed.
by Alma Winkle March 10, 2023
Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham says the stock bubble is still deflating and the market will go down in 2024 amid a ‘horror show’ from the Fed.
Jeremy Grantham said that the stock bubble is still in the process of deflating and the market will not bottom out until 2024.
The veteran investor blasted the Fed’s monetary policy as a 36-year-long “horror show.”
He predicted mild pain for investors in the coming year, while warning of a downturn in equities around April.
The stock market bubble is still in the process of deflating, according to veteran investor Jeremy Grantham, and equities will finally bottom out in late 2024 amid the Federal Reserve’s “horror show” of monetary policy.
In a recent interview on Bloomberg’s What Goes Up podcast, the GMO co-founder reiterated his view that stocks were in a speculative bubble and about to pop, thanks to the end of ultra-low interest rates and ample liquidity in the market. Thanks for those who brought the stock. For circling high during the pandemic.
Grantham also blasted the Fed’s monetary policy in the years since former Alan Greenspan took over as central bank chairman in 1987, calling its effects on the US economy a 36-year-long “horror show”, which has recently Helped build immense wealth over the years. ,
No end in sights until 2024, maybe 17% more downturn
so much pain ahead...

From Bloomberg via Yahoo Finance: Schwab Has Worst Drop in Years After SVB, Block Trade
From Barron's via Yahoo Finance: Why Charles Schwab Is Taking a Beating Along With Bank Stocks

@linter
I transcribed my grandfather's hand scribbled diaries from two business trips he took to Europe in 1938 and 1940
He was in Vienna March 15, 1938 (Anschluss ) and arguing with the desk clerk at the Hotel Imperial about why they had given his room away to the Nazis when Hitler Goering etc marched right by them, not ten feet away.
He couldn't fly out of Europe in 1940 and had to wait six weeks for a ship in Lisbon, along with hundreds of refugees and Gestapo He kept daily entries describing the faces and characters.
They are both amazing documents
These are accessible because they are limited in words and focused content. While today's world it seems like everyone puts there every thought online, how on earth is anybody going to find the gold among the dross in years to come?

March 10, '23
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-03-11/wall-street-week-full-show-03-10-2023
Ketterer at Causeway is so smart and engaging. But I just don't need small-cap volatility anymore. The other guest, Barbers Reinhard from Voya says you would do well with EM if you can hang on for 3-4 years into the future. Not interested, after EM has burned me so often.

I enjoyed the mildly stated but pointed conflicts between the two women in the early segment. Kettner thinks active management best now. Avoid index funds. Reinhard primarily uses index funds due to low cost. Ketterer likes foreign developed markets which she sees as cheap if measured against the U.S. the past decade. But Reinhard says to reduce exposure to foreign markets which have been hot more recently. Favors U.S. holdings.
Sure, Kettner is more media savvy, younger looking, appears to have her head screwed on straight. Doesn’t mean she’s right on those issues. Interesting that Reinhard was in studio with the host / moderator while Ketterer appeared on a large screen. I’m sure psychologists or communications professors would have a good take on how that plays in to viewer perceptions. But, I haven’t a clue. (Well, I do have a clue, but it’s not worth sharing.)
Zell comes across as an old money-grubbing traditionalist concerned about his bottom line and little else.

i've been a rolling stone contributing-editor writer since 1998 and worked there in different capacities since 1982 and while many folks think rs sold out decades ago, it's shocking to me how truly awful it has become since it was bought by penske media a few years ago. it's mostly all phony opinion put-downs now, with real reporting hardly given a thought. but that's the pressure of the modern online world, too, where 'content' has to be produced at a frantic clip that does away with more fact-based stuff: there's just no time for it ... atho of course there are exceptions.
as to the decline before penske. well, rs did some great work and had some great writers, the late hunter thompson, of course, but also matt taibi. me, i guess i'm part of the decline, what with writing cover stories about clay aiken and that snooki creature. then again, i was the last legit journalist to visit charlie manson in prison and write about him, though i got heat for that just being sensationalist junk, too. ain't no way to really win, not that i ever thought about it or cared.
but man o man do i miss the old days, when i could write 10k-word pieces that showed up in print and seemed to go on forever (for better or worse, ha ha). while i'm still on the masthead, i haven't had a piece published there in a long time. my style of writing -- mainly black comedy of a sort -- no longer flies with the new bosses; plus, i can't do straight opinion and that's what most of it has become.
i'm an ancient fart now, and the whole world has changed around me, and while i think it's all for the worse, so do most ancient farts. my way of dealing with it is to shrug and do something else. right now that means transcribing my great aunt's diaries from 1923, when she was traveling in post-WW1 Europe, and putting em online at this place called substack. feel free to check them out. she really was something else and a far better writer than me even at my so-called best. https://thekathidiaries.substack.com/

I am puzzled by how few accounts were insured. Here's why:
About fifteen years ago, I worked for a small company in the SF Bay Area that was building up cash to purchase a permanent home. Folks on that end of the company were not happy with the treatment they were getting from Wells Fargo. So they went shopping around. They ended up going with Bank of Marin, because it claimed that it could break up the large sum into more than one insured deposit account.
Another example of this would be where I have my taxable investment account. The sweep account is not a money market fund, but an FDIC insured deposit account. While it is not a feature that I have been able to enjoy,

the last time I checked, they advertised that they could break my hoard of spondulicks into multiple accounts if I bought a winning lottery ticket, and needed to park the cash.

So. if this is still legally possible, why wasn't it being done at SVB?
I doubt I have command of the terms of art that would get a meaningful response out of google, but rather an inundation of advertising from banks.

I’m not sure on this, but part of the issue may have to do with who legally owns the bank's assets because the bank is in the private sector, and what the FDIC and regulators are legally allowed to do with those assets in the event of a bank run and failure. It’s one thing for the FDIC/ regulators to sell those bonds immediately in its efforts to pay depositors in its standard insurance role. It is another thing for the government to hold onto those bonds potentially for years until they mature to recoup losses. That sounds like nationalization of the bank, which doesn’t happen in the U.S. historically.
Normally, in a bankruptcy there is a line of creditors with a hierarchy of who gets paid first. I could see there being legal wrangling here if the government held the bank’s bond portfolio after backstopping depositors. The argument could be that the bank investors want to seize that bond portfolio themselves to make themselves whole. A SVB stock or more likely bond investor could argue that the bank’s assets now that depositors are secure belong to investors. The government selling those assets immediately to pay depositors eliminates any potential legal ambiguity, even if that sale is at a loss.
I actually think nationalization of failing banks makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, you end up with capitalism on the way up and socialist taxpayer funded bailouts on the way down. Bailouts here are socialism for the rich. In Sweden when they had a similar banking crisis to our 2008 one in the 1990s, they conducted a structured bankruptcy of the failed banks and nationalized them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_financial_crisis_1990–1994
Krugman recommended the government do the same thing here as Sweden in 2008 but was ignored. Instead, the financial sector got a big taxpayer funded gift with few long-term repercussions for any of the largest companies and the executives involved.
As for options to avoid “government-induced erosion” from rate increases, floating rate debt comes to mind. But then investors are trading duration or interest rate risk for credit risk.

Not much I can add to what Yogi wrote. From the FDIC's press release, it sounds like only the insured amounts are being transferred to the successor bank, Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB). The rest of the gazillion dollars remain as liabilities of SVB, for which the depositors get receivership certificates (effectively, priority among bankruptcy creditors).
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23016.html
Maybe there will be investors in DINB. But no one will buy SVB's long term treasuries at par - which is what Yogi explained.
We can turn your question around: would the uninsured depositors be willing to lock up their money for 10 years (at a low interest rate) in order to be made whole a decade from now? Unless the depositors were forced to, they would not. They'd lose both the time value of their money and the use of the money for years. They'd rather take pennies on the dollar.