SVB保守???有点误导群众了吧。让群众以为保守的反而最先倒下了? 很多家金融媒体已经报道过SVB失败的原因,是有很多方面,但基本是大家都认为是SVB made a bold call on where to invest that cash,而不是保守。
"In an effort to attract clients, SVB offered relatively higher rates on deposits compared with many larger rivals. To help fund these higher rates, SVB bought longer-term, higher-yielding bonds when it was cash rich." 所以并不是客户们突然心血来潮,觉得SVB特别好拼命把钱往SVB存,导致SVB收到了太多它无法驾驭的cash,SVB被逼上梁山所以只能买长期bond。 事实上是SVB为了吸引资金,在当时低利息环境下给了太高的利息,却并没有相应的投资计划如何稳妥的给客户兑现高利息。银行不可能凭空生出钱支付利息,所以必须要想办法投资圈钱。“A bank might normally turn those deposits into loans to customers. But in part because of the tech boom, there wasn't a lot of demand for loans among SVB's tech customers. Instead, SVB decided to park that cash in securities. When banks do this, they have to decide whether they're going to hold those securities for the long term, in which case they'd be considered "held-to-maturity" (HTM) assets, or have them be available to sell at any moment, in which case they would be "available for sale" (AFS) assets. ”当时的市场环境,SVB也无法贷出这部分钱赚取利息,只能豪赌一把,大量投资longer-term, higher-yielding bonds,并且没有做风险对冲,这等于把客户的钱当成筹码放上赌桌一样,拿去赌美联储会长时间保持宽松的货币政策,不管通胀会不会发生,还在赌一直有新的被套娃客户注资,让他们拿去付前一个客户的利息。
"SVB’s mistake was investing in longer-term mortgage securities with more than 10 years to maturity, rather than shorter-maturity Treasuries or mortgage issues maturing in less than five years. This led to an asset/liability mismatch. " 如果他们可以拿到cash后不要急于投资去兑现高利息,而是做好对冲或者缓慢投资,或者不要去吸引太多的无法驾驭的cash,也许就不会出现严重的mismatch,失去客户的trust被挤兑。当然一般银行多多少少会有mismatch的,但没SVB这么严重,并且只要现金流还稳定,不发生挤兑就没事。''Complicating the situation, SVB kept a lower level of deposits on hand and invested a greater percentage of its capital in order to try and pay its relatively higher rates. Consequently, SVB has been on looser footing than most other banks.'' 结果就是SVB比大多数银行惨,只能落寞收场了。 |