Rumors swirl that Prince Harry and Meghan ‘lost everything’ at SVB....

Wow Citizen Free Press my guy now that is the kind of legit source I crave

Corroborated by the National Enquirer and a few troll farm accounts on Twitter!

was this website's design created by a highschool student?

Have you guys been living under a rock since 2017? CFP is a popular news aggregator site (mainly politics)... ranks on the top 100 sites

Oh no, the privacy tour will just have to be cut short then. 

H/T to Mr. Esposito for this great breakdown:

I'm going to break down the market reaction to Silicon Valley Bank in <400 words ladies and gents. Take a look at the attached chart for Unrealized Losses (URL). First, a word from the FDIC Acting Chairman:

"The combination of a high level of longer–term asset maturities and a moderate decline in total deposits underscores the risk that these unrealized losses could become actual losses should banks need to sell securities to meet liquidity needs." -Martin Gruenberg, Acting Chairman of the FDIC, 2/28/2023

What does The Acting Chairman mean exactly? Here goes.

1. In 14 months the Fed has raised Fed Funds 450 bps, from 0.25% to 4.75%. Rate increases cause bond values to fall. If you own a 2 year UST bond at 2.5%, and the current market rate for 2y UST is 5%, who would want to buy your 2.5% bond? The price has to fall until the combination of price and rate are attractive to the investor.

2. Banks hold USTs and Agency MBS for liquidity purposes primarily. If people withdraw deposits, treasurers sell bonds for cash and return the cash to the withdrawing depositors.

3. If you are a depositor at a big bank earning 0.5% on your savings, and you see that a 2 year UST yields 5% at zero risk, you think, hmmm... maybe I should withdraw my deposit and buy the UST and earn 450 bps more money for myself. Smart move, right? Especially if you have $100K or more sitting there.

4. The biggest change in bank accounting from 2008 is this: Unrealized losses on securities no longer count against Tier 1 Capital, and thus the all-important 8% Leverage Ratio (Tier 1 Capital / Total Assets), and therefore bank solvency, is not affected by quarterly market / interest rate fluctuations. In 2008, you had banks with Unrealized Losses greater than Tier 1 Capital, so they showed as Negative-Equity on balance sheet. That's why we had the infamous $700B Hank Paulson bailouts - to capitalize negative-equity banks. Thankfully, Dodd-Frank changed this accounting rule. Banks can opt-out of reporting URL in Tier 1. Sigh of relief all around. Hence the fact that URL is 8x greater than in 2008 doesn't matter, right?

5. Here's the thing. If banks are forced to SELL their bonds for liquidity reasons (such as a big deposit outflow), they have to REALIZE the losses, taking the actual equity hit. This is what happened to SVB yesterday. They had to take the hit. As a result, there is a great disturbance in the Force. Everyone is wondering - what banks have had large deposit outflows? What banks will have to sell bonds next, and realize those losses?

Just a wild stab here, but my guess is that a lot of nervous bankers are speed-dialing the NY Fed about this, begging them to tell Powell to stop raising rates. URL is getting to be too dangerously high.

All because of a woman

If this guy were to take his rightful place on the throne, we wouldn't have scum like that populating that family.

I have a feeling, they will be okay.  

No idea if the Markles have money at SVB but looking at the bank holding company's 10-K I suspect depositors will be made whole after selling the assets.