On Sunday afternoon, September 14, 2008, hundreds of employees of the financial giant Lehman Brothers walked into the bank's headquarters at 745 Seventh Avenue in New York City to clear out their offices and desks.
Lehman was hours away from declaring bankruptcy. And its collapse the next day triggered the worst economic and financial devastation since the Great Depression.
The S&P 500 fell by roughly 50%. Unemployment soared. And more than 100 other banks failed over the subsequent 12 months. It was a total disaster.
This bank, it turned out, had been using their depositors' money to buy up special mortgage bonds. But these bonds were so risky that they eventually became known as "toxic securities" or "toxic assets".
These toxic assets were bundles of risky, no-money-down mortgages given to sub-prime "NINJAs", i.e. borrowers with No Income, No Job, no Assets who had a history of NOT paying their bills.
When the economy was doing well in 2006 and 2007, banks earned record profits from their toxic assets.
But when economic conditions started to worsen in 2008, those toxic assets plunged in value… and dozens of banks got wiped out.
Now here we go again.
Fifteen years later… after countless investigations, hearings, "stress test" rules, and new banking regulations to prevent another financial meltdown, we have just witnessed two large banks collapse in the United States of America-- Signature Bank, and Silicon Valley Bank (SVB).
Now, banks do fail from time to time. But these circumstances are eerily similar to 2008… though the reality is much worse. I'll explain:
1) US government bonds are the new "toxic security"
Silicon Valley Bank was no Lehman Brothers. Whereas Lehman bet almost ALL of its balance sheet on those risky mortgage bonds, SVB actually had a surprisingly conservative balance sheet.
According to the bank's annual financial statements from December 31 of last year, SVB had $173 billion in customer deposits, yet "only" $74 billion in loans.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but banks typically loan out MOST of their depositors' money. Wells Fargo, for example, recently reported $1.38 trillion in deposits. $955 billion of that is loaned out.
That means Wells Fargo has made loans with nearly 70% of its customer's money, while SVB had a more conservative "loan-to-deposit ratio" of roughly 42%.
Point is, SVB did not fail because they were making a bunch of high-risk NINJA loans. Far from it.
SVB failed because they parked the majority of their depositors' money ($119.9 billion) in US GOVERNMENT BONDS.
This is the really extraordinary part of this drama.
US government bonds are supposed to be the safest, most 'risk free' asset in the world. But that's totally untrue, because even government bonds can lose value. And that's exactly what happened.
Most of SVB's portfolio was in long-term government bonds, like 10-year Treasury notes. And these have been extremely volatile.
In March 2020, for example, interest rates were so low that the Treasury Department sold some 10-year Treasury notes at yields as low as 0.08%.
But interest rates have increased so much since then; last week the 10-year Treasury yield was more than 4%. And this is an enormous difference.
If you're not terribly familiar with the bond market, one of the most important things to understand is that bonds lose value as interest rates rise. And this is what happened to Silicon Valley Bank.
SVB loaded up on long-term government bonds when interest rates were much lower; the average weighted yield in their bond portfolio, in fact, was just 1.78%.
But interest rates have been rising rapidly. The same bonds that SVB bought 2-3 years ago at 1.78% now yield between 3.5% and 5%… meaning that SVB was sitting on steep losses.
They didn't hide this fact.
Their 2022 annual report, published on January 19th of this year, showed about $15 billion in 'unrealized losses' on their government bonds. (I'll come back to this.)
Join 12,86,317 Smart Traders. Enter Email for Free Stock Tips. Instant Activation.
