SVB, Signature Bank, and Sivergate. All of them collapsed ONLY because they were poorly managed. They manage their assets and liabilities like first-graders.They were too greedy and took too much risk. They simply gambled customers money on the "Will fed pivot or not" bet.They did not take actions to increase liquidity before a bank run, which should have been predicted by them, taking into account the profile of depositors (crypto and tech companies) and the amount of layoffs, blood, and pain we've seen in this industry over the past year.
What FED did with that? Filled the gap with our money. Buying assets from collapsing banks at 100 cents on the dollar. Assets that are now worth way less. They even created a special tool.that will be ready to use if other banks collapse in the future (Bank Term Funding Program).
So what's the point of them (banks) being rational, risk averse investors if they can either win or win (or at least not lose).
BIS (Bank for International Settlements) just a few months ago gave permission to banks to hold up to 2% in bitcoin.
"In its recently published Prudential Treatment of Crypto Asset Exposure Report for December 2022, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said that banks may now retain 2% of their reserves in cryptocurrencies. Until last June, the BIS authorized only a few institutions to keep no more than 1% of their reserves in cryptocurrencies.
Effective January 1, 2025, the policy identifies crypto assets and the acceptable means of processing them."
https://coinculture.com/au/policy-regulation/bis-now-allows-banks-to-keep-2-of-their-reserves-in-crypto/So if banks can have 2% of their reserves in bitcoin and ... they just get permission to do yolo trades ... how possible is it in your opinion that most of them will load risky assets (including bitcoin) and, in case of success, pay themselves generous bonuses, and in case of failure, the FED is here to bail them out?