首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 领导力 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

2023与2008金融危机的“四大不同”

WILL DANIEL
2023-04-22

顶级投资者称美国银行业比15年前更强大。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

2019年1月,橡树资本管理公司联席主席霍华德·马克斯。图片来源:SCOTT MCINTYRE—BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

硅谷银行(Silicon Valley Bank)和签名银行(Signature Bank)破产,瑞士信贷银行(Credit Suisse)被迫出售给瑞银集团(UBS),在金融部门最近的这些不稳定重头戏之后,一些投资者担心可能像15年前次贷危机后那样,金融体系中的“传染”会蔓延。但现在尘埃已经落定,监管机构介入以支持储户,行业的首席执行官们将矛头指向少数害群之马——贷款机构,大多数专家认为,银行最近的问题与2008年完全不同,对经济的影响也不会那么严重。

现在,亿万富翁投资者霍华德·马克斯(Howard Marks)也加入进来,他周一表示,虽然最近几周经常将其与全球金融危机(GFC)相提并论,但这是没有意义的。

困境债务资产管理公司橡树资本管理公司的联合创始人在周一的一份备忘录中解释道,“我认为2008年和2023年之间的相似之处仅限于这样一个事实,即在这两种情况下,少数金融机构都存在问题,”然后强调了2008年和今天银行问题之间的四个主要区别。

特殊情况的贷款机构

首先,马克斯指出,在全球金融危机期间,导致贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)等传奇金融机构倒闭的问题是普遍存在的,而最近的银行不稳定主要是由有“特殊情况”问题的银行所引起的。

例如,硅谷银行面临银行挤兑的风险尤为严重,因为其储户主要集中在创业领域,且基本上没有保险。这意味着当该行上个月开始出现困境迹象时,关系密切的储户能够相互通知,并在创纪录的时间内从他们的账户中提取数十亿美元。

硅谷银行的管理层在疫情期间收到大量存款后,投资于期限较长的债券,但这一风险并未取得回报。去年,美联储为抵消通货膨胀开始提高利率时,这些债券的价值大幅下跌,使放贷机构蒙受了数十亿美元未实现的贷款损失。

“上述情况使硅谷银行在出现不利情况时特别容易受到银行挤兑的影响,而这种情况的确发生了。然而,上述许多因素对硅谷银行来说是特殊的,”马克斯说。“因此,我认为硅谷银行的失败并不意味着美国银行系统普遍存在问题。”

这不是2008年的抵押贷款市场“疯狂”

马克斯还解释说,全球金融危机的主要原因是抵押贷款支持证券形式的坏账过剩——将家庭贷款打包在一起供投资者购买。

据这位亿万富翁称,在全球金融危机爆发之前,投资者和金融机构在住房抵押贷款方面“经历了暂时的疯狂”。他们向“无法或不愿提供收入或资产证明的”不合格借款人贷款,将这些坏账(称为次级抵押贷款)与优质贷款打包在一起,创建可投资的抵押贷款支持证券,然后利用杠杆提高他们创造的风险资产的回报。

马克斯在周一写道:“纵观当前形势,我想不出有什么能与全球金融危机核心的次级抵押贷款高度类似。”他强调,硅谷银行的问题并不是像全球金融危机期间那样由坏账抵押贷款引起的,而是由于没有保险且集中的储户基础,以及没有考虑到利率上升对其贷款组合的影响。

“有些东西或多或少是被过度炒作的,或是缺乏实质内容的,有些人提到空白支票公司(SPACs)或加密货币,但它们的规模没有那么大,也许没有那么缺乏实质内容,当然也没有在美国主要金融机构的资产负债表上,持有足以危及我们金融系统的金额。”他补充道。

规模问题

尽管上个月硅谷银行和签名银行的倒闭分别是美国历史上第二大和第三大银行倒闭事件,但马克斯认为,这些失败并不像全球金融危机期间所看到的那样严重。

硅谷银行的规模只有2008年倒闭的华盛顿互助银行(WaMu)的三分之二,后者仍然是美国历史上破产规模最大的银行。他指出:“此外,由于金融部门在过去15年里显著扩张,2008年,华盛顿互助银行的3070亿美元资产比硅谷银行如今的2090亿美元资产重要得多。”

这位亿万富翁还解释说,在全球金融危机期间破产的一些金融机构具有“系统重要性”,但他认为,由于硅谷银行的区域性和特定行业的储户基础,“它还算不上具有系统重要性”。

“全球金融危机影响了一些真正大型的银行,那些家喻户晓的银行。大多数人都认为,在政府采取行动之前,它即将危及到更大的银行。但没有理由认为硅谷银行的失败会带来同样的风险。”

新规定应对新时代

最后,马克斯强调监管机构对银行近期的不稳定作出了有效、高效的应对,指出他们能够介入,为存款人提供担保,并向金融系统注入流动性以防止危机蔓延。

“因此,我很难相信硅谷或类似的银行会引发足以触发不可逆转的金融危机的连锁反应。”他说。

这位亿万富翁补充说,在全球金融危机之后实施的法规,包括《多德弗兰克法》(Dodd-Frank Act),该法创立了金融稳定监督委员会和消费者金融保护局,并为银行设立了更高的准备金要求,使得今天的银行比15年前更加强大。

“得益于金融危机后的规定,如今美国主要银行的资本充足,流动性充沛,资产负债表健康。”他表示。

虽然全球金融危机导致美国465家银行倒闭,全球范围内还有数百家银行倒闭,导致全球数百万人失业,流落街头,但银行最近的问题不太可能对金融系统或经济产生如此剧烈的影响。但这并不意味着它们不会引起问题。

“我认为硅谷银行(和签名银行)的失败意义不在于它预示着更多银行倒闭,而在于它可能加大投资者和贷款机构之间已经存在的谨慎情绪,导致信贷紧缩进一步加剧,给各行各业和部门带来更多痛苦。”马克斯写道。(财富中文网)

译者:中慧言—项曦莹

硅谷银行(Silicon Valley Bank)和签名银行(Signature Bank)破产,瑞士信贷银行(Credit Suisse)被迫出售给瑞银集团(UBS),在金融部门最近的这些不稳定重头戏之后,一些投资者担心可能像15年前次贷危机后那样,金融体系中的“传染”会蔓延。但现在尘埃已经落定,监管机构介入以支持储户,行业的首席执行官们将矛头指向少数害群之马——贷款机构,大多数专家认为,银行最近的问题与2008年完全不同,对经济的影响也不会那么严重。

现在,亿万富翁投资者霍华德·马克斯(Howard Marks)也加入进来,他周一表示,虽然最近几周经常将其与全球金融危机(GFC)相提并论,但这是没有意义的。

困境债务资产管理公司橡树资本管理公司的联合创始人在周一的一份备忘录中解释道,“我认为2008年和2023年之间的相似之处仅限于这样一个事实,即在这两种情况下,少数金融机构都存在问题,”然后强调了2008年和今天银行问题之间的四个主要区别。

特殊情况的贷款机构

首先,马克斯指出,在全球金融危机期间,导致贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)等传奇金融机构倒闭的问题是普遍存在的,而最近的银行不稳定主要是由有“特殊情况”问题的银行所引起的。

例如,硅谷银行面临银行挤兑的风险尤为严重,因为其储户主要集中在创业领域,且基本上没有保险。这意味着当该行上个月开始出现困境迹象时,关系密切的储户能够相互通知,并在创纪录的时间内从他们的账户中提取数十亿美元。

硅谷银行的管理层在疫情期间收到大量存款后,投资于期限较长的债券,但这一风险并未取得回报。去年,美联储为抵消通货膨胀开始提高利率时,这些债券的价值大幅下跌,使放贷机构蒙受了数十亿美元未实现的贷款损失。

“上述情况使硅谷银行在出现不利情况时特别容易受到银行挤兑的影响,而这种情况的确发生了。然而,上述许多因素对硅谷银行来说是特殊的,”马克斯说。“因此,我认为硅谷银行的失败并不意味着美国银行系统普遍存在问题。”

这不是2008年的抵押贷款市场“疯狂”

马克斯还解释说,全球金融危机的主要原因是抵押贷款支持证券形式的坏账过剩——将家庭贷款打包在一起供投资者购买。

据这位亿万富翁称,在全球金融危机爆发之前,投资者和金融机构在住房抵押贷款方面“经历了暂时的疯狂”。他们向“无法或不愿提供收入或资产证明的”不合格借款人贷款,将这些坏账(称为次级抵押贷款)与优质贷款打包在一起,创建可投资的抵押贷款支持证券,然后利用杠杆提高他们创造的风险资产的回报。

马克斯在周一写道:“纵观当前形势,我想不出有什么能与全球金融危机核心的次级抵押贷款高度类似。”他强调,硅谷银行的问题并不是像全球金融危机期间那样由坏账抵押贷款引起的,而是由于没有保险且集中的储户基础,以及没有考虑到利率上升对其贷款组合的影响。

“有些东西或多或少是被过度炒作的,或是缺乏实质内容的,有些人提到空白支票公司(SPACs)或加密货币,但它们的规模没有那么大,也许没有那么缺乏实质内容,当然也没有在美国主要金融机构的资产负债表上,持有足以危及我们金融系统的金额。”他补充道。

规模问题

尽管上个月硅谷银行和签名银行的倒闭分别是美国历史上第二大和第三大银行倒闭事件,但马克斯认为,这些失败并不像全球金融危机期间所看到的那样严重。

硅谷银行的规模只有2008年倒闭的华盛顿互助银行(WaMu)的三分之二,后者仍然是美国历史上破产规模最大的银行。他指出:“此外,由于金融部门在过去15年里显著扩张,2008年,华盛顿互助银行的3070亿美元资产比硅谷银行如今的2090亿美元资产重要得多。”

这位亿万富翁还解释说,在全球金融危机期间破产的一些金融机构具有“系统重要性”,但他认为,由于硅谷银行的区域性和特定行业的储户基础,“它还算不上具有系统重要性”。

“全球金融危机影响了一些真正大型的银行,那些家喻户晓的银行。大多数人都认为,在政府采取行动之前,它即将危及到更大的银行。但没有理由认为硅谷银行的失败会带来同样的风险。”

新规定应对新时代

最后,马克斯强调监管机构对银行近期的不稳定作出了有效、高效的应对,指出他们能够介入,为存款人提供担保,并向金融系统注入流动性以防止危机蔓延。

“因此,我很难相信硅谷或类似的银行会引发足以触发不可逆转的金融危机的连锁反应。”他说。

这位亿万富翁补充说,在全球金融危机之后实施的法规,包括《多德弗兰克法》(Dodd-Frank Act),该法创立了金融稳定监督委员会和消费者金融保护局,并为银行设立了更高的准备金要求,使得今天的银行比15年前更加强大。

“得益于金融危机后的规定,如今美国主要银行的资本充足,流动性充沛,资产负债表健康。”他表示。

虽然全球金融危机导致美国465家银行倒闭,全球范围内还有数百家银行倒闭,导致全球数百万人失业,流落街头,但银行最近的问题不太可能对金融系统或经济产生如此剧烈的影响。但这并不意味着它们不会引起问题。

“我认为硅谷银行(和签名银行)的失败意义不在于它预示着更多银行倒闭,而在于它可能加大投资者和贷款机构之间已经存在的谨慎情绪,导致信贷紧缩进一步加剧,给各行各业和部门带来更多痛苦。”马克斯写道。(财富中文网)

译者:中慧言—项曦莹

After the latest instability in the financial sector, headlined by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank as well as Credit Suisse’s forced sale to UBS, some investors were concerned that “contagion” could spread through the financial system like it did after the subprime mortgage crisis some 15 years ago. But now that the dust has settled, with regulators stepping in to backstop depositors and industry CEOs pointing the finger at a few black sheep lenders, most experts believe that banks’ recent issues were nothing like 2008, and the impact on the economy won’t be nearly as severe.

Now, billionaire investor Howard Marks is chiming in, too, arguing Monday that while comparisons to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) have been common in recent weeks, they just don’t make sense.

“I think the similarities between 2008 and 2023 are limited to the mere fact that, in both instances, problems existed at a few financial institutions,” the cofounder of distressed debt asset manager Oaktree Capital Management explained in a Monday memo before highlighting four main differences between banks’ issues in 2008 and today.

‘Special case’ lenders

First, Marks noted that during the GFC, the problems that took down legendary financial institutions like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were widespread, while the latest banking instability was largely caused by “special case” problem banks.

Silicon Valley Bank, for example, was particularly at risk of a bank run because its depositors were highly concentrated in the startup space and largely uninsured. This meant that when the bank began to show signs of distress last month, the well-connected depositors were able to alert one another and pull billions from their accounts in record time.

SVB’s management also took a risk that didn’t pay off when it invested in bonds with long maturities after receiving an influx of deposits during the pandemic. When the Fed jacked up interest rates to counter inflation starting last year, the value of these bonds declined dramatically, leaving the lender with billions in unrealized loan losses.

“The sum of the above rendered SVB particularly vulnerable to a bank run if adverse circumstances developed—and they did. However, many of the above factors were peculiar to SVB,” Marks said. “Thus, I don’t think SVB’s failure suggests problems are widespread in the U.S. banking system.”

This wasn’t 2008’s mortgage market ‘insanity’

Marks also explained that the main cause of the Global Financial Crisis was a glut of bad debt in the form of mortgage-backed securities—bundles of home loans packaged together for investors to buy.

Investors and financial institutions “experienced temporary insanity with respect to residential mortgages” in the lead up to the GFC, according to the billionaire. They loaned money to unqualified borrowers “who couldn’t or wouldn’t document income or assets,” packaged those bad loans (called subprime mortgages) together with good loans to create investable mortgage-backed securities, and then used leverage to boost returns on the risky assets they created.

“Looking at the current situation, I can’t think of anything that’s highly analogous to the subprime mortgages at the heart of the GFC,” Marks wrote Monday, emphasizing that SVB’s issues weren’t caused by bad mortgages like during the GFC, but instead by an uninsured and concentrated depositor base as well as not accounting for the impact of rising rates on their loan portfolio.

“There are things here or there that have been overhyped or are short on substance—some people will point to SPACs or cryptocurrencies—but they’re not as massive in scale, perhaps not as lacking in substance, and certainly not held on the balance sheets of America’s key financial institutions in amounts sufficient to endanger our financial system,” he added.

A size issue

While the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank last month amounted to the second- and third-largest bank failures in U.S. history, Marks argued that the failures weren’t on the same scale as what was seen during the GFC.

SVB was just two-thirds the size of Washington Mutual (WaMu), which collapsed in 2008 and remains the largest bank to fail in U.S. history. “Further, since the financial sector has expanded meaningfully in the last 15 years, WaMu’s $307 billion of assets in 2008 were much more significant than SVB’s $209 billion today,” he noted.

The billionaire also explained that some of the financial institutions that went bust during the GFC were “systemically important,” but he doesn’t think that “can be said of SVB” owing to its regional and industry specific depositor base.

“The GFC affected some truly large banks—household names—and most people believed it was on the way to jeopardizing even bigger ones before the government stepped in. There’s no reason to think the failure of SVB poses the same risk.”

New regulations for a new era

Finally, Marks highlighted regulators’ effective and efficient response to banks’ recent bout of instability, noting that they were able to step in and backstop depositors and inject liquidity into the financial system to prevent contagion.

“Thus, I find it hard to believe that SVB or the like can set off a chain reaction sufficient to trigger an irreversible financial crisis,” he said.

The billionaire added that regulations enacted after the GFC, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and established higher reserve requirements for banks, have made banks today much stronger than they were 15 years ago.

“Thanks to the post-GFC rules, the major U.S. banks today are well capitalized and have significant liquidity and healthy balance sheets,” he argued.

While the GFC took down 465 banks in the U.S., and hundreds more around the world, leaving millions out of work and on the streets worldwide, banks’ recent issues are unlikely to have such a dramatic impact on the financial system or the economy. But that doesn’t mean they won’t cause problems.

“My sense is that the significance of the failure of SVB (and Signature Bank) is less that it portends additional bank failures and more that it may amplify preexisting wariness among investors and lenders, leading to further credit tightening and additional pain across a range of industries and sectors,” Marks wrote.

0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开