저자: JamieDimon관련인용,영상진행자Zach · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 진행자는 제이미 다이먼의 '은행위기는 끝나지 않았고 수년간 여파가 있을 것'이라는 주장을 과장된 공포 마케팅으로 보며, 규제 탓이라는 책임 전가를 비판한다. 핵심 주장: 다이먼은 연례서한에서 은행위기가 아직 끝나지 않았고 이후에도 수년간 여파가 남는다고 말했다. 영상은 이것이 중소형 은행과 지역은행 고객을 대형은행(JP모건)이 흡수하려는 공포 조성이라고 본다. 규제 논쟁: 댓글과 자막 발언들은 도드-프랭크 규제(바니 프랭크 발언 포함)가 SVB 사태의 원인이라는 주장과, 오히려 규제가 느슨했고 은행 스스로 리스크를 관리하지 않았다는 반론이 엇갈린다. 스트레스 테스트가 장기 저금리 가정에 기반했다는 비판이 다수다. 자산 관련 언급: 장기 국채(롱듀레이션 트레저리)는 금리 상승 시 손실 위험이 크고, 단기 국채·CP·MMF·금리스왑·물가연동채 등이 대안으로 거론됐다. 2021년 10년물 금리가 2% 미만이었던 점이 은행의 장기채 매입 배경으로 지적됐다. 개별 종목 및 지수(삼성전자, 엔비디아, 비트코인 등) 직접 언급이나 가격 전망은 없다. 리스크: SVB의 예금 과다, 리스크위원회 조작 의혹, 이자율 급등 대응 실패가 구조적 문제로 지적되며, 향후 추가 규제 강화 가능성도 언급됐다. 출연자 전망: 진행자와 댓글 다수는 다이먼의 경고를 이해관계에 따른 발언으로 평가하며, 은행 규제 강화는 불가피하다는 입장을 보인다.
다듬은 글
hi everyone I'm Zach with the money Channel and I think it's best that we dive into it as an overview CNBC has reported Jamie dimon says the banking crisis is not over and will cause repercussions for years to come specifically the longtime JPMorgan Chase CEO has said in his annual letter the current crisis is not yet over and even when it is behind us there will be repercussions from it for years to come J.P Morgan's Jamie dimon says the bank in crisis is not over and will cause repercussions for years to come gonna perpetuate the fear so he can keep hoovering up all those customers from small and mid-sized Banks this smaller market share for regional Banks and credit unions and more deposit dollars than the banks know what to do with are the repercussions so all this mostly due to Rolling Bank Dodd-Frank which former senator Frank essentially caused to happen by testifying that the requirements were too astringent he was on the board of directors at Signature Bank at the time he testified against his own regulation the bank failed and he was mad at the FDIC as they were in the process of getting funding for liquidity when they took it over politicians going to politician Frank gets way too little credit he helped cause the crash co-authored legislation to protect against another crash I don't help dismantle the legislation he co-authored listen he may well be right I don't know how anyone else feels but I really wish Jamie dimon would shut the hell up already it's fine it was written in his annual letter he's a brilliant banker and I have a lot of respect for some of his decisions but every conversation I've ever had with Jamie is that the sky is falling his statements are crafted in the best interest for JPMorgan he knows the statements can move the market so he's very calculating I definitely understand that he has definitely always Skye is falling to be fair to him Finance is basically just content risk assessment all he hears and knows our worst case scenarios as a former bank executive myself you are 100 correct our careers are all about risk assessment best case scenario never gets you fired it's always worst case scenario thus we always want worst case which sounds like the issue with svb if reporters are true that they didn't have a cro for a year it's not the largest leap of logic to think that their previous Chief risk officer saw the risk in Rising interest rates and Executives didn't like what they were hearing I'm working either the regulations on svb now the chief risk officer left in April 2022 and wasn't a place until January 2023.
I can't speak to the rationale for her leaving but will say I'm not sure it would have made a difference the bank grew faster than management ability to manage risk Regulators were aware of the risk but surely didn't think management would liquidate an entire Bond portfolio at such a loss regulates can only do so much I think we will see some nice improvements to bank regulation I don't know much about banking but it's a sem legit organization that can audition Banks and tell how safe they are with money management it's just crazy to me that the whole financial well-being of the country and world can depend on the decisions that Bankers make I feel like the bank should be way more open about what they do with the money they are basically relying on government money as a backup then the public has a right to know which bank does what Mooney's credit rating is a good place to start there was until the Republicans under Trump gleefully gutted the regulatory free framework yeah the people who the banks pay regulate the banks they're the same people who give the banks money when they make bad decisions it's the government sometimes they work for the banks before the government or after or both Jamie dimon says regulations stoked banking turmoil we got used to a certain set of market conditions and thought they wouldn't change then they did pretty common piece of height inside of every large business failure flawed a stress test not a word on this until now he makes himself sounds like some sort of all-knowing Saint when he is a scummy as the rest of them where were his insights before during and after the stress tests were done they could have ran their own stress tests if they thought the regulatory ones were inadequate but they didn't because that would cost them money don't make a mistake they have known everything what they have done wrong it is just a failed attempt at trying to look innocent when they have done all the crap they could have done it's also important to note that they don't see it as something they did wrong they see it as a game where they make millions bending the rules until they break then walk away shrugging and pointing fingers it's awfully rational when you're insanely greedy and have no problem lying about everything you do he's correct though the Dodd-Frank stress test requirements relied on Long dated bonds nothing prevented FCB from running whatever stress tests they wanted we only do risk analysis if the government tells us to isn't a very competent Leadership Bank worker here this has been an ongoing pain point in my industry since the stress tests Inception just because you're hearing about it for the first time doesn't mean demons being capped in hindsight the man's a legendary speaking truth the only effective stress test is the one that allows them to fail agree the stress test should include a large interest rate rise but the private Administration should not have signed off on removing audits from mid-sized Banks audits weren't removed the requirement to perform one specific set of tests was dropped those tests are still performed at basically every midsize and larger Bank even without the Mandate the problem with this Bank wasn't that specific test it was different tests I required to do one such test is prescribed by 12 CFR the bank didn't like the model results so they managed populated assumptions to get the results they wanted so which particular investment should these banks have bought that would have been safer only thing I can think of is shorter duration treasuries looks like poor management decision going with long data treasuries at ultra low rates they really wanted that extra fraction of a percent in their spreads short-term treasuries Repose commercial paper these are actually truly safe Investments made by money market phones unlike long-term treasuries which are exposed to interest rate risk interest rate swaps to protects against the rapid rise in rates inflation protected bonds like tips floating rate debt to counterbalance their floating rate liabilities and startup deposits that were also subject to interest rate risk literally nothing zero percent return is better than a loss you can always count on this guy to come up with an absurd and disingenuous take on everything who do you think designed the regulations and stress tests that are in place and Lobby to have this rather than reenact glass-steagall and break up banks that are too big to bail I too ask to remove the rules I don't follow if you need a government to listen to your wishes then you really need to be a banger first then you will be able to make your demands if you are not a banker then these people are not going to even listen to you how about Banks take responsibility for the risk they take and not rely on taxpayer money to bail them out how about separating investment Banks from regular Savings Banks how about forcing Banks to break up if they get too big it was definitely Regulators who forced those Banks to buy all those long-term treasury bonds when the dumbest kid in their first year of Finance could have told you rates would rise let's be real these Banks took on irresponsible amounts of risks that resulted in collapse they built their own house of cards and they did so largely knowing that they would be bailed out if they mess it up likely causing them to care even less about their actions is people like Jamie dimon who caused these crises The Regulators are at fault only for being too lenient and the government too ready to take big money in order to water down the regulations demon is being silly yes its true treasuries would be considered safer no counterparty or default risk the only risks are inflation and well inflation but and this is a very big but everyone knows the further out you go in time the riskier it gets everyone knows this it's Bond investing 101.
I was really really surprised that Banks had gone out and bought long-term treasuries really surprised that's not something that's worth done in any way that would be remotely dangerous back when I was working for the banks which admittedly was a while ago in other words he asked for regulatory purposes treasuries are fine but to think you could buy a long-term treasuries and be safe when rates went up you'd have to be a complete fool regarding stress tests he's just annoyed he has to employ and actually listen to his Risk Managers yes I was there for that he can go pound sand a bunch of sarcastic replies in here and nothing or substance of what he actually said this makes complete sense stress tests should incorporate likely stresses that should actually measure resiliency of how Banks would function High interest rates almost certainly should be one of them if what he's saying is true and they weren't that's a massive mess up that makes sense but there is no way that these people did not see it coming it was obvious that it is going to happen and even the normal people saw it coming so saying that they did not see it coming is complete crap was it obvious in early and mid-2021 when FDB locked in sub two percent interest rates on the 10-year treasury if it was obvious why were Market rates on the 10-year treasury sub 2 percent look it's clearly a poor business that didn't understand how to hedge and manage its risk and they paid the price for it but at least part of the blame has to go on Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley Hood animals who create a bank run just because they can even worse the stress testing based on the scenario devised by the Federal Reserve board never Incorporated interest rates at higher levels he's not wrong and go back to early 2022 and the FED Dot Plot was showing a peak of 2.5 to 3 percent every signal the banks got from government was that this wasn't a risk sivb would still be here today if that were true no excuse I come into work every day and I have a very specific job you're going to tell me the bank the size of svb didn't have an entire department devoted to this sort of forecasting and risk assessment of course they do dead what likely happened is any warnings went at the chain of command where they were probably cast aside this is kind of why whining by diamond is just sour grapes by Bankers because they know it means more regulation and less money we already know the rest committee at svb did see how fast they could blow up against higher interest rates the problem was svb wanted higher growth targets and the CFO not a typo ordered the risk committee to fudge this wasn't an accident this was a crime SCB had too much in deposits for its Equity base it could have slashed interest rates and driven deposits to other institutions while earning good profits it could have shared risk with larger Banks it could have done an equity offering it instead decided to gamble and lost that's kind of my point these things didn't come out of nowhere the rate hikes happened well over one year it wasn't like the bank came in on a random Monday and rates were five percent deliberate decisions were made and now the bankers are worried about the excess regulation well maybe if they didn't need to get bailed out all the time we wouldn't need extra rules I mean he's not wrong he and many others pointed this out prior to the reason banking issues he's not suggesting that there should be no regulation just that the existing regulation is absolutely incentivized buying treasuries when interest was crazy low and also criticizing Regulators for using a floor stress test system based on eternally low interest rates ironically carried out by the same institution that raised rates rapidly all factual a competent Bank wouldn't have sunk so much money into long-term debt when rates couldn't possibly have gone any lower idiotic choices buys svb aren't the fault of the federal government
Comments 0