@AndyJ said:
Oversight and regulation matters. The 2018 change in the regulatory scheme (as detailed on Marketplace Morning Report today) was to move the bank exemption from oversight up from $5 billion or less valuation to $450 billion or less. No stress tests, no risk assessment, nothing.

Twitter is good for a few things!
My favorites
"Just as there are no atheists in Fox Holes, there are also no Libertarians during a financial crisis..."
~Barry @Ritholtz,
https://twitter.com/sruhle/status/1634703830032998400?s=12

It’s easy for investors to dismiss the ripples from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank SVIB as contained and nothing to worry about when it comes to a broader portfolio.
But if there’s one thing to know about banking crises, it’s that they are never just about the banks. They may start there, but they don’t end there. Easy financial conditions tend to lead to higher risk-taking and a complacency that long-established patterns will continue. Until they don’t.
As Warren Buffett has been known to observe, only when the tide goes out do you see who’s been swimming naked.
The Worry Is Fear
The failure of two major regional banks since Friday threatens to erode investor and consumer confidence to a degree that could spiral in unexpected ways. And with inflation still raging at the highest levels in 40 years and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at the most accelerated pace since those years, things are starting to break.
“The worry is about fear,” says Tim Murray, capital markets strategist for multi-asset portfolios at investment manager T. Rowe Price.
In good times, too, policymakers get lax and tend to feel like it is safe to repeal or reduce important protections designed to prevent systemic events and consumer safeguards.

I think SJIM is probably a very good investment. Haven't there been several studies that have demonstrated Cramer's recs are almost always loosers

Thanks.
But I did get my three mile hike on the beach in first

Question: If a major source of the problem is that Silicon Valley Bank was forced to sell US Gov't securities at a loss because their current value is less than their maturity value, why would the FDIC or any other "rescue" authority do the same thing? Rather than take an immediate loss, why wouldn't a "rescue authority" provide immediate funding equal to the actual maturity value of the underlying assets, and then retain those assets until they actually mature, thus minimizing the loss due to the maturity problem?

The FDIC and other banking regulators spent the weekend trying to sell SVB, apparently with no luck. Here is what they came up with instead:
The Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. jointly announced the efforts aimed at strengthening confidence in the banking system after SVB’s failure spurred concern about spillover effects. ...
The Fed in a separate statement said it’s creating a new “Bank Term Funding Program” that offers loans to banks under easier terms than are typically provided by the central bank.
Fed officials said on a briefing call that the facility will be big enough to protect uninsured deposits in the wider US banking system. It was invoked under the Fed’s emergency authority allowing for the establishment of a broad-based program under “unusual and exigent circumstances,” which requires Treasury approval. ...
Under the new program, which provides loans of up to one year, collateral will be valued at par, or 100 cents on the dollar. That means banks can get bigger loans than usual for securities that are worth less than that — such as Treasuries that have declined in value as the Fed raised interest rates.