https://asiatimes.com/2023/03/the-us-banking-crisis-isnt-over-yet-far-from-it/
"Customers of SVB were withdrawing their deposits beyond what it could pay using its cash reserves, and so to help meet its obligations the bank decided to sell $21 billion of its securities portfolio at a loss of $1.8 billion. The drain on equity capital led the lender to try to raise over $2 billion in new capital.

The call to raise equity sent shockwaves to SVB’s customers, who were losing confidence in the bank and rushed to withdraw cash. A bank run like this can cause even a healthy bank to go bankrupt in a matter days, especially now in the digital age.

In part, this is because many of SVB’s customers had deposits well above the $250,000 insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp – and so they knew their money might not be safe if the bank were to fail. Roughly 88% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.

Signature faced a similar problem, as SVB’s collapse prompted many of its customers to withdraw their deposits out of a similar concern over liquidity risk. About 90% of its deposits were uninsured.

Systemic risk?

All banks face interest rate risk today on some of their holdings because of the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign.

This has resulted in $620 billion in unrealized losses on bank balance sheets as of December 2022.
....
The US government’s decision to backstop all deposits of SVB and Signature regardless of their size should make it less likely that banks with less cash and more securities on their books will face a liquidity shortfall because of massive withdrawals driven by sudden panic.

However, with over $1 trillion of bank deposits currently uninsured, the banking crisis is far from over."

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 5:04:58 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://asiatimes.com/2023/03/the-us-banking-crisis-isnt-over-yet-far-from-it/
> "Customers of SVB were withdrawing their deposits beyond what it could pay using its cash reserves, and so to help meet its obligations the bank decided to sell $21 billion of its securities portfolio at a loss of $1.8 billion. The drain on equity capital led the lender to try to raise over $2 billion in new capital.
>
> The call to raise equity sent shockwaves to SVB’s customers, who were losing confidence in the bank and rushed to withdraw cash. A bank run like this can cause even a healthy bank to go bankrupt in a matter days, especially now in the digital age.
>
> In part, this is because many of SVB’s customers had deposits well above the $250,000 insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp – and so they knew their money might not be safe if the bank were to fail. Roughly 88% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.
>
> Signature faced a similar problem, as SVB’s collapse prompted many of its customers to withdraw their deposits out of a similar concern over liquidity risk. About 90% of its deposits were uninsured.
>
> Systemic risk?
>
> All banks face interest rate risk today on some of their holdings because of the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign.
>
> This has resulted in $620 billion in unrealized losses on bank balance sheets as of December 2022.
> ...
> The US government’s decision to backstop all deposits of SVB and Signature regardless of their size should make it less likely that banks with less cash and more securities on their books will face a liquidity shortfall because of massive withdrawals driven by sudden panic.
>
> However, with over $1 trillion of bank deposits currently uninsured, the banking crisis is far from over."

The link between US debt limit and banking crisis:
https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20230315004972-262102?chdtv

"美國債務上限危機遲遲未解，政府瀕臨關門之際，美國第16大銀行矽谷銀行無預警宣告倒閉，一周內第3起金融機構倒閉事件，迫使財政部、聯準會、聯邦存款保險公司緊急介入，史無前例宣布提供存款人足額保證，以穩定市場信心。政府債務上限危機與金融機構倒閉事件，看似無關，背後其實有著千絲萬縷關係，深值警惕。

「債券」是其中關鍵元素，過去數十年，美國政府不斷發行債券，銀行追隨購買，債券價值隨著全球化與經濟繁榮、美元獲得全球信賴、市場需求不斷擴張而提高，繁榮的債市讓美國政府有花不完的錢，美國人享受愈來愈好的社會福利，金融機構與債券持有人也發大財。美國為維繫全球霸權並滿足國內需求，政府舉債速度愈來愈快、規模愈來愈大。歐巴馬任內8年，美國債務增加約8兆美元，川普任內因疫情紓困，4年花了8兆，拜登兩年多花了7.4兆，債務規模從約24兆達到31.4兆美元，接近債務上限。

債務增加未必是壞事，只要發債有人認購就不會有問題。美國經濟量體與國際影響力大，美元流通性強，美國債券容易變現，總是有人願意買單。特別是對一些以固定收益為主的大型退休基金或各國央行外匯儲備來說，不管是基於流動性、獲利性或避險考量，美債是最好的選擇。

只是，自去年以來，由於烏俄衝突引爆地緣政治風險，加上美聯準會連18碼暴力升息，出脫美債成為機構與個人投資者間的默契，也成為全球債券市場的主流動向。全球持有美債規模高居一、二的日本與中國，2022年就分別減持2245億美元及1732億美元。因轉單效益對美出口大增的台灣，外匯存底迭創新高，但2022年減持美債規模達250億美元。

更不用說根據野村統計，美國公債在2022年足足下跌12.5%，除創下63年來首度連2年下跌紀錄外，也是自1788年以來235年間的最大跌幅。凸顯美債堅若磐石的地位正逐漸動搖。矽谷銀行倒閉事件，表面上是流動性出現問題進而造成擠兌風波，背後與其所持有龐大美債資產價值減損有關。因為隨著利率加速上揚，債券票面價值也跟著急速下跌，市場接手意願自然不會太高。

尤有甚者，美債上限問題囿於兩黨惡鬥，遲遲未解，加深年中美國政府關門危機，讓市場投資人更為擔憂。近期美國國會預算辦公室就警告，若參眾兩院不提高舉債上限，美國政府可能最快7月就會違約，在無法完全履行政府義務前提下，美國經濟將蒙受龐大損失。以最近一次川普政府停擺35天為例，美國國會預算辦公室調查指出，這段期間美國經濟損失就高達110億美元，平均每天損失3.1億美元。"

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 5:04:58 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://asiatimes.com/2023/03/the-us-banking-crisis-isnt-over-yet-far-from-it/
> "Customers of SVB were withdrawing their deposits beyond what it could pay using its cash reserves, and so to help meet its obligations the bank decided to sell $21 billion of its securities portfolio at a loss of $1.8 billion. The drain on equity capital led the lender to try to raise over $2 billion in new capital.
>
> The call to raise equity sent shockwaves to SVB’s customers, who were losing confidence in the bank and rushed to withdraw cash. A bank run like this can cause even a healthy bank to go bankrupt in a matter days, especially now in the digital age.
>
> In part, this is because many of SVB’s customers had deposits well above the $250,000 insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp – and so they knew their money might not be safe if the bank were to fail.. Roughly 88% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.
>
> Signature faced a similar problem, as SVB’s collapse prompted many of its customers to withdraw their deposits out of a similar concern over liquidity risk. About 90% of its deposits were uninsured.
>
> Systemic risk?
>
> All banks face interest rate risk today on some of their holdings because of the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign.
>
> This has resulted in $620 billion in unrealized losses on bank balance sheets as of December 2022.
> ...
> The US government’s decision to backstop all deposits of SVB and Signature regardless of their size should make it less likely that banks with less cash and more securities on their books will face a liquidity shortfall because of massive withdrawals driven by sudden panic.
>
> However, with over $1 trillion of bank deposits currently uninsured, the banking crisis is far from over."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-republic-stock-plunges-after-bank-rescue-plan-dividend-suspension-e18fa90c
"First Republic Bank FRC -32.80%decrease; red down pointing triangle

shares fell more than 30% Friday after a multibillion-dollar rescue deal orchestrated by the biggest U.S. banks failed to convince investors that the troubled lender is on solid footing.

The move erased the gains that came Thursday, when a group of banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. deposited $30 billion in First Republic in an effort to restore confidence in a banking system badly battered by a pair of bank failures.

Friday’s plunge reflects concerns that the big-bank rescue deal didn’t fully address problems at First Republic, which also suspended its dividend Thursday. The tumult has analysts asking if the company could be pressured to find a buyer.

“It’s not clear whether it’s viable as a stand-alone entity,” said Julian Wellesley, global banks analyst at Boston-based Loomis Sayles & Co. “So it’s likely, in my view, to be taken over.”

First Republic declined to comment. In a regulatory filing Thursday, the bank said deposit outflows had slowed significantly. The rescue deal, it said, was “a vote of confidence for First Republic and the entire U.S. banking system.”

The sudden collapse recently of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank—the second- and third-largest bank failures in U.S. history, respectively—have sparked concerns that anxious customers could drain deposits from other small and midsize banks."

Again, over $1 trillion of bank deposits are currently uninsured.
"A $30 billion deposit influx from biggest U.S. banks fails to calm jittery investors" not surprising.