Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • UBS Agrees to Buy Credit Suisse for More Than $3 Billion
    Credit Suisse Importance
    "The bank ranks among the world's largest wealth managers and crucially it is one of 30 global systemically important banks, whose failure would cause ripples through the entire financial system."
    "Credit Suisse has a local Swiss bank, wealth management, investment banking and asset management operations. It has just over 50,000 employees and 1.3 trillion Swiss francs in assets under management at the end of 2022, down from 1.6 trillion a year earlier."
    "With more than 150 offices in around 50 countries, Credit Suisse is the private bank for a large number of entrepreneurs, rich and ultra rich individuals and companies."
    Link
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    This morning there are fewer CDs (1 year) available this morning at Fidelity and Vanguard. On last Friday, there were many more choices. Stayed with large banks only - Morgan Stanley, UBS and Barclays.
    Will wait after March 22th FOMC meeting to see if treasury will return. Two weeks ago T bills were yielding over 5.2% (6 mo) and 4.8% (2 years). Just like that they were all gone.
    It is time to refocus on investment grade bond funds since corporate junk and bank loan funds took a sizable hit this week.
  • Could First Republic’s collapse trigger a recession?
    @larryB
    Hey!!!! Recessions are a part of life in our system. They come and they go. For whatever the reason the next recession is always somewhere in the future. But they are inevitable.
    I'm fine with accepting this idea so long as there is a social-safety net to help people who are struggling because of the inevitable boom and bust cycles capitalism creates. It feels quite different I imagine believing recessions are some natural or inevitable force we all have to accept like hurricanes if you or your family is suddenly in the eye of the storm and there is no assistance during the unemployment, hunger and homelessness that also inevitability occurs with those recessions. I imagine you think similarly, but I think it's important not to just talk in the abstract about such events. Real people get hurt during recessions. I remember seeing some of the struggling young people in the parks in New York during the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests with signs saying, "Where's My Bailout?" It can't just be for the banks when the time comes.
  • UBS Agrees to Buy Credit Suisse for More Than $3 Billion
    Feels more like a shotgun marriage done at fire-sale prices, like what JPM paid for Bear Stearns back in '08 ... though not quite at prices comparable to a hot-dog as it would've been at $1B.
  • Could First Republic’s collapse trigger a recession?
    First Republic's collapse will not trigger a recession.
    But I do think there is a high probability of a recession within the next year or so.
    We've had the worst bout of inflation since 1981.
    The Fed has aggressively hiked rates over the past year.
    History suggests the Fed will be unable to engineer a "soft landing."
    Lending conditions will continue to deteriorate, many businesses will cut back,
    and consumers (currently in decent shape after pandemic stimulus) will eventually decrease spending.
    Numerous pundits have predicted a shallow recession.
    We'll see what happens...
  • UBS Agrees to Buy Credit Suisse for More Than $3 Billion
    UBS Group AG agreed to take over its longtime rival Credit Suisse Group AG for more than $3 billion, pushed into the biggest banking deal in years by regulators eager to halt a dangerous decline in confidence in the global banking system. The deal between the twin pillars of Swiss finance is the first megamerger of systemically important global banks since the 2008 financial crisis when institutions across the banking landscape were carved up and matched with rivals, often at the behest of regulators.
    The Swiss government said it would provide more than $9 billion to backstop some losses that UBS may incur by taking over Credit Suisse. The Swiss National Bank also provided more than $100 billion of liquidity to UBS to help facilitate the deal.
    Swiss authorities were under pressure to make the deal happen before Asian markets opened for the week. The urgency on the part of regulators was prompted by an increasingly dire outlook at Credit Suisse, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. The bank faced as much as $10 billion in customer outflows a day last week, this person said.
    The sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month prompted investors globally to scour for weak spots in the financial system. Credit Suisse was already first on many lists of troubled institutions, weakened by years of self-inflicted scandals and trading losses. Swiss officials, along with regulators in the U.S., U.K. and European Union, who all oversee parts of the bank, feared it would become insolvent this week if not dealt with, and they were concerned crumbling confidence could spread to other banks.
    An end to Credit Suisse’s nearly 167-year run marks one of the most significant moments in the banking world since the last financial crisis. It also represents a new global dimension of damage from a banking storm started with the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month.
    Unlike Silicon Valley Bank, whose business was concentrated in a single geographic area and industry, Credit Suisse is a global player despite recent efforts to reduce its sprawl and curb riskier activities such as lending to hedge funds.
    Credit Suisse had a half-trillion-dollar balance sheet and around 50,000 employees at the end of 2022, including more than 16,000 in Switzerland.
    UBS has around 74,000 employees globally. It has a balance sheet roughly twice as large, at $1.1 trillion in total assets. After swallowing Credit Suisse, UBS’s balance sheet will rival Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG in asset size.
    The above is excerpted from a current article in The Wall Street Journal, and was edited for brevity.
  • Happier Days at SVB / File Photo from WSJ
    The bank officers certainly knew. Here's the head and subhead of an NYT article in today's edition. SVB was under Fed scrutiny, apparently just not very effective scrutiny:
    Before Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the Fed Spotted Big Problems
    The bank was using an incorrect model as it assessed its own risks amid rising interest rates, and spent much of 2022 under a supervisory review.
  • News: UBS to buy CS.
    Yes just saw this! Is anyone considering nibbling on any of the banks? If so how are you doing so? Andrew Bary had a nice piece in Barron’s where he favored JPM, MS and GS… it’s a good read.
    Read that article too. - No - I’ll “pass” on banks. (Don’t ride roller-coasters either) ISTM Buffett has a modest amount in BAC. (2nd or 3rd largest holding after AAPL). Seems like a safer way to get some exposure.
    I just checked PRISX (TRP Financial Services Fund). It’s held up better than I’d expect.
    Approximate change in NAV:
    YTD -12%
    1 year - 22%
  • Morningstar charts not working
    Yes, I've run into the problem, @NumbersGal. I discovered that SOMETIMES, you can get the thing to show what you want to see if you put the ticker into the "Comparison" window. But I only found that out accidentally. I'm not paying for my premium subscription--- TRP is. Otherwise I'd be extremely furious. And the default time-periods just skip over a 10-year look. You have to enter that yourself, manually. But I find often that the manual entry for other time-periods doesn't like the dates I provide, and defaults to the first of the year, or some such. ...Morningstar has become cut-rate. When it works, it works. Trouble is, it's just not reliable. I still use it because I know where to look to find what I want. But even daily numbers are very slow to be updated. I have often noticed that Friday's statistics don't get updated until sometime on SUNDAY. It's a real disgrace.
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    I had forgotten the Robo Advisor cash level isssue
    Not having a sweep account is extremely irritating as it requires you to determine exactly how much you need to sell to cover a buy and since sells are not settled for a couple of days you have to go back and buy the MMF then. I think a lot of small accounts keep money in cash because of this, and a lot of people forget and have higher cash balances than they would like.
    IT didn't make much difference when MMF rates were below 1% but now with big accounts it adds up.
    Per "Simply Safe Dividends"
    "During the last tightening cycle from 2004 to 2007, clients' cash balances fell from 3.6% of assets to 2.2%. The decade of rock-bottom interest rates that followed caused uninvested cash balances to swell to around 6% to 7% of client assets....
    That said, if uninvested cash balances moved closer to 3.5% of client assets versus current levels near 6%, Schwab could lose $200 billion of cheap deposits – that's equivalent to nearly 40% of the firm's total assets."
    It seems unlikely they will create a sweep feature with those numbers.
    As Fidelity and Vanguard are not publicly traded, the problems we are less likely to hear about problems there.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    and
    'The bank was using an incorrect model as it assessed its own risks amid rising interest rates, and spent much of 2022 under a supervisory review.'
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/business/economy/fed-silicon-valley-bank.html
  • News: UBS to buy CS.
    Done for $2 billion + SNB lifeline of $100 billion.
  • Could First Republic’s collapse trigger a recession?
    We’ll know a lot more Wednesday when the FOMC releases its statement. Barron’s reports that the futures markets are pricing in a 65% likelihood of a .25 bp rate hike Wednesday. Forsyth seems to adhere to that view. But there are articles by others in Barron’s predicting the Fed will pause at this week’s meeting. Pause? Yes, they should. In fact, I don’t understand the haste with which they’ve already pushed-up rates - or their fixation with 2% inflation in the first place.
    No single bank failure should trigger a recession. The issues with banks run deep. (And SVB represents more than 1 failing.) The problems with banks are directly related to the speed with which the Fed raised rates. For a body which prides itself on “transparency”, to shift almost overnight from “transient” inflation and accompanying very low overnight lending rates (below 2%) into full crisis mode with rates now approaching 5% is “remarkable”. And it helps explain how some banks’ investment managers came to be caught flat-footed and leaning the wrong way.
    ISTM there will be some type of recession in the next year or two. Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle. The question should be: how deep and how long lasting?. How all this relates to investing is a different animal. Stocks, from my understanding, tend to fall leading into a recession but begin recovering prior to a recession’s end. Also, provided stocks were bought at reasonable value in the first place, they should appreciate over time along with inflation.
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    Lot of Schwab Bank deposits are from Schwab Robo-Advisors that keep high % allocation in cash but robo-holders don't control those bank deposits directly. Schwab was also fined on this but it continues this practice with just a tweak in its disclosure.
    If brokerage clients have left money in brokerage cash or Schwab Bank, that money could leave anytime for T-Bills or other purchases.
    Schwab indeed is losing some discretionary cash to other brokerages because it doesn't offer m-mkt fund as a core/settlement fund (as Fido, Vanguard, etc do). BoA recently downgraded Schwab on just this issue. Of course, people can use Schwab m-mkt funds with T+1 settlements.
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    @sma3, check this thread out, https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/34619/thread
    Schwab clients pull 8.8 B from prime funds in three days
    (YBB)
    OK, so lot of money shifted internally from Schwab Prime m-mkt funds (subject to gates and/or redemption fees) to Schwab Government m-mkt funds (no gates or redemption fees).
    I looked at prime-retail SWVXX specifically (I am a bit short for its Ultra class SNAXX) using Schwab website data on flows,
    www.schwabassetmanagement.com/products/swvxx
    YTD Net Flows to 3/16/23 +$21.55 billion (inflow)
    7-day Net Flows to 3/16/23 -$2.11 billion (outflow)
    3-day Net Flows to 3/16/23 -$3.91 billion (outflow)
    Peak Outflow on 3/14/23 -$3.34 billion (outflow)
    Fund AUM on 3/17/23 $114.51 billion
    It is a big fund with big numbers. I don't see problems with the numbers above in the context of the fund AUM. BTW, the OP is for ALL Schwab m-mkt funds. For SWVXX, the modified headline may be "Schwab clients pull 3.9 B from prime SWVXX in three days".
  • Happier Days at SVB / File Photo from WSJ
    ”A party at Silicone Valley Bank in 2015”
    image
    Article: ”We Never Thought A Bank So Successful Could Collapse This Fast”
    Photo / Article appeared in the March 18, 2023 edition of The Wall Street Journal
    Photo Caption - “A Party At Silicone Valley Bank in 2015”
  • Morningstar charts not working
    I have had the same problem for months. When I contacted M* support they said cleaning out the cache would fix it. It does but only for the next time you chart.
    It recurs constantly. When I asked them again, they said use a new browser or "Contact your local computer support person". That is of course me.
    I suspect that they have stopped supporting charts on M* as they want us all to migrate to M* investor. Charts still work there, although the default is stock price. They do display "return" which I have to assume includes dividend reinvestment, like the old "growth of $10,000
    @Yogibearbull
    When did M* say they would make new portfolio manger "at least as good as " the old one?
    They still do not support importing holdings from a spreadsheet, the most useful feature of the old portfolios in my opinion
    They want you to give them your passwords for your brokerage accounts to import the positions which seems like a very risky proposition to me.
  • Morningstar charts not working
    PB-Big Bang Post https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/34631/thread
    This may be the next step after M* Discussions went private.
    I can access the Charts on login, but I get the same message without login ("Invalid Security"). I also see a button for 7-day free trial of M* Investor, $249/yr after the free period.
    It seems that the M* Home will have open-access for very limited stuff only - Articles, Quotes, etc (my guess). M* Investor subscription will be needed for other content. However, the new M* Investor Portfolio feature is still bad but M* has indicated that the old M* Portfolio will be available until the new one is at least as good as the old one.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    A bank will fail if there's a run on the bank in excess of the amount of cash the bank can raise.
    Negative equity makes it hard for a bank to raise a lot of cash, since even if it could liquidate its investments without driving prices down, it still wouldn't raise enough cash to cover 100% of deposits.
    The failure arises because of the run on the bank that cannot be met. Merely having negative equity doesn't cause the failure. If we assume that depositors act rationally (there's your joke for the day), then insured depositors will not pull out their money. Under that (ridiculous) assumption of rationality, it also matters what percent of deposits are uninsured.
    To take an extreme case, if there's just a single dollar in a bank that's uninsured, the bank is going to be able to cover a withdrawal of that dollar, regardless of how deeply negative its net equity is. And the remaining dollars, being insured, won't be pulled in a panic.
    Here are two sources with fairly hard figures on percentage of uninsured deposits.
    https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/banks-report-most-exposed-to-uninsured-deposits/
    https://www.businessinsider.com/signature-svb-us-banks-have-over-1-trillion-uninsured-deposits-2023-3
    The IBD piece is based on an S&P report from a few days ago and lists the 10 banks with the highest percentage of uninsured deposits along with their loans and held-to-maturity (HTM) investments. Those are the investments that are hard to liquidate without taking losses, and marked-to-market tend to be below par.
    At the top of the list is BNY Mellon (96% uninsured), though with only 31% of deposits invested in loans and HTM securities. Both SVB and Signature bank are high in both uninsured deposits and HTM+loans (around 90% or higher).
    While not at the same stratospheric levels, Citigroup is notable for having 77% of deposits uninsured (First Republic is at 68%), and 64% of deposits in HTM+loans.
    Company			Symbol	Uninsured deposits / 	Loans and HTM/		YTD %
    domestic deposits total deposits change
    (higher is riskier) (higher is riskier)
    Bank of New York Mellon (BK) 96.5% 31.2% -0.1%
    SVB Financial Group (SIVB) 93.9% 94.4% -53.9%
    State Street (STT) 91.2% 40.1% -1.8%
    Signature (SBNY) 89.7% 93.3% -39.2%
    Northern Trust (NTRS) 83.1% 54.5% -3.1%
    Citigroup (C) 77.0% 64.6% 4.3%
    HSBC Holdings (HSBA) 72.5% 47.4% 11.9%
    First Republic Bank (FRC) 67.7% 110.6% -69.1%
    East West Bancorp (EWBC) 65.9% 91.1% -13.9%
    Comerica (CMA) 62.5% 72.8% -36.6%
    The Business Insider piece looks at "15 major banks" as of the end of 2022. Here too, Citigroup stands out. It must be nice to be TBTF.
    Financial institution	Deposits not insured by the FDIC
    Signature Bank 90%
    SVB 88%
    Citigroup 85%
    First Republic 68%
    JPMorgan 59%
    BNY Mellon 56%
    Citizens Financial 49%
    KeyCorp 47%
    PNC 46%
    Truist 46%
    M&T Bank 45%
    Fifth Third 42%
    Bank of America 33%
    Goldman Sachs 33%
    Huntington Bancshares 33%
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    "And a question for Yogi, who is on the list of "two dozen" banks who would have negative equity if all their bond portfolios were marked to market?"
    @Jim0445, I haven't seen a specific list but that is from Twitter speculations based on full mark-to-market of underwater HTM holdings. See this link for a newest speculation, Twitter LINK.
    A big factor in the demise of these failed banks may have been the role played by the social-media and take all this with generous grains of salt. What used to spread over weeks or months can now spread in hours.