Jim vs. James: “Are Banks Safe?”

The great bank debate of 2023. [Altucher Confidential] March 28, 2023 [WEBSITE]( | [UNSUBSCRIBE]( Jim: “This is my tenth banking crisis. This one is just getting started, despite all the happy talk that the crisis is over.” [Hero_Image] Jim vs. James: “Are Banks Safe?” By Jim Rickards [Trade Alert] This Explosive Sector Is Primed To Deliver Huge Gains… Fast! [Click here for more...]( Have a few hundred dollars and the desire to make huge gains? If so, [this explosive stock market sector]( needs your attention right away. I’m talking about biotech. And as one headline from late July reads, “investors back [biotech]… as sector booms.” Point being, there’s a lot of money up for grabs right now. Best of all, we’ve identified what could be the No. 1 biotech stock pick in the world. It could deliver substantial gains over the coming weeks to those who act fast. And you can still buy shares for less than $3. [Just click here now for the urgent details.]( [Chris Campbell] CHRIS CAMPBELL We’re calling it the “great bank debate of 2023.” (Or something like that.) In one corner, we have the inimitable James Altucher: “RELAX!” says James. “Banks are safe.” In the other corner, we have the equally nonpareil Jim Rickards: “Anyone who thinks the banking crisis is over,” Jim says, “has never lived through one.” Although they’re housed under one umbrella… It’s not unusual for our gurus to disagree. And it’s an ongoing source of confusion for a few. (In response, I like to channel Walt Whitman: “Very well, we contradict ourselves. We are large. We contain multitudes.”) Consider why… Most media outfits “protect” their onlookers from the rabid agony of differences in opinion. But that’s where we tend to lean in. After all, the best decisions are made when individuals can hear both sides and… gasp… choose for themselves. . That’s why, when in-house disagreements do arise, we don’t mind putting them toe-to-toe. OK. So here we go: In a nutshell, James argues the banks are safe. While everyone’s getting spooked, James sees opportunity. Jim argues the opposite. The recent moves by the nutheads at the Fed are only delaying the inevitable: more bank failures. Today, Jim states his case. Tomorrow, James. (Who wins? You decide.) Read on. It’s (Much) Worse Than They Say Jim Rickards This is my tenth banking crisis, starting with Herstatt. This one is just getting started, despite all the happy talk that the crisis is over. Let’s dive in… The litany of recent bank failures has become all too familiar. It began in early March with the bankruptcy filing of Silvergate Bank. Silvergate was not just another commercial bank. It was a traditional FDIC-insured bank, but it was also heavily involved in the cryptocurrency world. It was known as a crypto bank that would lend to crypto exchanges and crypto hedge funds and act as a portal between the dollar system and cryptocurrencies. Silvergate was a casualty of chaos in the crypto markets that began with the 76% collapse of Bitcoin prices between November 2021 and November 2022. It then soon spread to the failures of Three Arrows (a crypto hedge fund), Genesis (a crypto exchange), USDC (a stablecoin that “broke the buck” and fell to $0.83) and the mother of all crypto scams, FTX, which may be the greatest financial fraud in history. You remember that, right? It seems so long ago in light of more recent developments. Silvergate was the carrier that spread the crash virus from crypto to traditional banks. The next victims were Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Credit Suisse. More are on the way. Urgent Note From James – Response Requested By Midnight [I just made a massive change to my Altucher’s Investment Network newsletter.]( This is one of the biggest changes to a newsletter in the history of our business… As far as I know, nothing like it has ever been done before. I’m adding 3 brand-new benefits to this all-new “Pro level” of Altucher’s Investment Network. And as one of my readers, I’d hate to see you left behind. That’s why – until MIDNIGHT tonight – [you’ll be able to upgrade your current subscription to this new “Pro level” by clicking here.]( [Seriously. Just click here now to see how to claim your upgrade.]( SVB Means Big Trouble The magnitude of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVP) in particular can hardly be overstated. This was the largest bank failure since Washington Mutual during the global financial crisis in 2008. Initially, over $100 billion in bank deposits were vaporized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on Friday, March 10 only to be reinstated 48 hours later on Sunday, March 12. As you probably know by now, this completely demolished the $250,000 limit on insured deposits that the FDIC is allowed by law to protect. Never mind. The Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, FDIC, and the White House together declared a systemic emergency, which allowed the FDIC to protect the full amount of deposits. Some companies had over $3 billion on deposit with FDIC. SVB depositors included major corporations such as Cisco, Roku, Vox and many other giants of Silicon Valley. Don’t Forget the Politics These Silicon Valley giants were all protected even as citizens in East Palestine, Ohio, received little or no aid after a train crash that led to the creation of a mushroom cloud of toxic chemicals and dioxins in the water. Let’s face it: It didn’t hurt that the SVB depositors were mostly Democrats. It didn’t help that the residents of East Palestine were mostly Republicans. That’s just how the White House rolls. That kind of political favoritism isn’t new, by the way. During the New Deal, federal aid to states often depended more on political calculations and electoral politics than on actual need. In any case, the lead regulator of SVB is the Federal Reserve. In addition to the failures of risk management inside SVB, there were clearly massive failures of regulatory oversight by the Fed. In true Washington style, the Fed has done nothing to terminate or discipline the officials responsible for this failure, starting with Michael Barr who is the Fed’s vice chair for supervision. Why was Barr not removed from office immediately after this historic failure? Washington is the one place where people fail upward. “Hey, We Knew It All Along!” Instead, the Fed has ginned up its PR machine by pretending it was on the case all along. “Silicon Valley Bank’s risky practices were on the Federal Reserve’s radar for more than a year” prior to the “bank’s demise,” The New York Times says. Really? Those practices included “doing a bad job of ensuring that it would have enough easy-to-tap cash.” SVB was also rated by the Fed as “deficient for governance and controls.” So what happened next? The answer of course is nothing. The Fed sent a few warning letters and that was it. Why was the bank not taken over when these cash and control defects were spotted? At a minimum, why was management not replaced and immediate remedial steps implemented? Again, the Fed is trying to spin these warning letters as showing they were on the case. In fact, they show the opposite. The impression is one of bureaucrats going through the motions and doing nothing of substance. In the middle of this bank run was the strange case of First Republic Bank… Yes, It’s a Bailout First Republic is clearly under financial stress due to fleeing depositors and underwater long-duration assets. But it has not technically failed. Instead, it was rescued by a consortium of 11 solvent banks putting up cash to bolster First Republic’s liquidity. The banks were JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, PNC Financial Services, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, and Truist Financial (formerly SunTrust). They put up a total of $30 billion. Although the Fed was overseeing this rescue, all of the funds were from private banks. So technically it was not a government bailout. Interestingly, this rescue bears a close resemblance to the 1998 rescue of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (which I negotiated). That rescue was also encouraged by the Fed but was actually conducted with private funds. The money came from a consortium of 14 banks, including at least seven of the banks in the First Republic rescue. Both the First Republic rescue and the Long Term Capital rescue were based on John Pierpont Morgan’s rescue plan devised during the Panic of 1907. To this day, that’s still the best playbook if you want to end a financial panic without using government money. Delaying the Inevitable Still, there’s one critical difference between Long Term Capital and First Republic when it comes to rescues. The Long Term Capital rescue was all capital, no debt. The First Republic rescue is all debt and no capital. Huge difference. That means it’s not really a rescue; it’s just a cash bandage. That can buy time, but it’s not the end of the crisis. They just delayed the day of reckoning, that’s all. Banking crises move in multiple stages with some quiet periods between. Don’t let those quiet times lull you into a state of complacency. You’ll be hearing more about a real First Republic bailout in the days ahead. And it won’t be the last. Regards, Jim Rickards For Altucher Confidential --------------------------------------------------------------- [The Daily FWD] URGENT! FREE Report: 6 Ways to Beat a Financial Disaster Another financial crisis could be just DAYS away! That’s why world-renowned macroeconomist Jim Rickards released this brand-new FREE report revealing the 6 most important things you NEED to do right now to protect yourself. Simply click below to sign up for the elite new research letter The Daily FWD – which will give you honest, unfiltered news on EVERY important issue impacting your wealth and security… The moment you do, we’ll rush you this exclusive new report straight to your inbox. [Click here to sign up to The Daily FWD – 100% FREE.]( By clicking the link above you agree to receive email updates and special offers from The Daily FWD. We will not share your email address with anyone. And you can opt out at any time. [Privacy Policy](. Response Requested 1/1000th of an ounce of gold available for you As a Altucher Confidential reader, Jim Rickards is offering you 1/1000th of an ounce of gold when you upgrade your account. It will come in the form of a “Gold Back” - a new type of gold currency that’s starting to spread across America ([click here to view](. If you have not responded to Jim’s offer yet, and want to know how to claim yours… Please click the link below for details. [Click here to learn how to claim your new Gold Back Currency]( Thanks! Amber Anderson Customer Service [Paradigm]( ☰ ⊗ [ARCHIVE]( [ABOUT]( [Contact Us]( © 2023 Paradigm Press, LLC. 808 Saint Paul Street, Baltimore MD 21202. By submitting your email address, you consent to Paradigm Press, LLC. delivering daily email issues and advertisements. To end your Altucher Confidential e-mail subscription and associated external offers sent from Altucher Confidential, feel free to [click here.]( Please note: the mailbox associated with this email address is not monitored, so do not reply to this message. We welcome comments or suggestions at feedback@altucherconfidential.com. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, [contact us here]( or call (844)-731-0984. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized financial advice. We allow the editors of our publications to recommend securities that they own themselves. However, our policy prohibits editors from exiting a personal trade while the recommendation to subscribers is open. In no circumstance may an editor sell a security before subscribers have a fair opportunity to exit. The length of time an editor must wait after subscribers have been advised to exit a play depends on the type of publication. All other employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. Altucher Confidential is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. Please read our [Privacy Statement.]( If you are having trouble receiving your Altucher Confidential subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by [whitelisting Altucher Confidential.](