← pool

🏛️ Deposit-insurance reform gets paid for out of bank equity

Chamath's call: the SVB/Signature post-mortem forces legislation in 2023 that closes the depositor/bank mismatch, and 100% deposit protection can only be funded by an enormous hit to bank profitability and return on invested capital - so the fix lands as a permanent write-down of bank equity value rather than a taxpayer bill. Sacks and Friedberg take the other side on magnitude: fully insuring the ~$8T of uninsured deposits costs only about $100B of extra premiums, and insurance gets cheaper the more you insure because the run risk disappears.

0 CONVICTION
peaked 42.0 EMBER
DORMANT
band · contested
▼ SHORT XLF
expression · bearish politics-market
WRONG
result · return -36.0% · vs SPY -69.6%
2024-03-24
born 2023-03-24 (E121) → window closed

other ideas on the same ticker, same direction: Rate spike impairs bank equity: the October 30 call reports land as a shock 34 (KRE) · Rate spike impairs bank equity: the October 30 call reports land as a shock 34 (XLF) · Rate spike impairs bank equity: the October 30 call reports land as a shock 34 (KBE)

⚖ Why this result

fully deterministic — computed from daily closes on the scoring date; nothing below is editable or hand-set

  1. Window: 2023-03-24 → 2024-03-24 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
  2. The call: ▼ SHORT XLF (primary play). XLF rose 36.0% over the window → return (sign flipped for a SHORT) = -36.0% (the call lost money).
  3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +33.6% → vs SPY = -36.0 − (+33.6) = -69.6% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the result uses.
    Direction-only read: -2.4% — did XLF move the predicted way relative to the market. The two only differ on a SHORT: this call was right about direction relative to the index but still cost money versus holding it.
  4. Rule fired:
    · RIGHT — return ≥ +10% AND beat SPY by 5+
    · HALF — return ≥ +5% OR beat SPY at all
    ▶ WRONG — everything else
  5. Credit: supporters of a WRONG earn 0 each, opposers the opposite — this feeds the scoreboard. supported: Chamath, Friedberg | opposed: Sacks

Conviction timeline

bands: green ≥ 65 · watch ≥ 45 · ember ≥ 15

Plays vs SPY · % since first mention (2023-03-24)

Plays

expressionsymbolkindrelevancerationale
▼ SHORT XLFetf PRIMARY broad US bank and financials equity - the equity value Chamath says gets wiped to pay for 100% deposit protection
▼ SHORT KBEetf adjacent broader bank basket including the GSIBs Chamath says absorb the ROIC hit
▼ SHORT KREetf adjacent regional banks bear the most re-regulation risk (SIVB/SBNY have no usable series and FRC delisted, so KRE is the proxy)

Mention log newest first

Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E132 (2023-06-10) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 1:10:45 SUPPORT
“First Republic and others have now proclaimed that they're going to start charging a lot more service fees to hold your money and they're going to start taking a lot less risk. So we're already headed in that direction.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market 51% · n=95 · E121 (2023-03-24) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 1:13:54 SUPPORT
“Make it abundantly clear that we're never going to insure 100% and deal with that risk, or make it 100% and deal with the fallout, which is largely about wiping out a lot of equity value in banks.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E121 (2023-03-24) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:05:45 OPPOSE
“And so the irony is if you actually did, and this is getting super technical, but if you actually looked at the statistical model and said, how much is this going to cost to insure every deposit? It gets much, much cheaper the higher the deposits that you're willing to insure would be.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E121 (2023-03-24) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 58:35 OPPOSE
“If you were to now additionally cover the whole thing, all the deposits, it would be another roughly 100 billion of premiums paid by these banks. That seems very manageable to me, actually.”

Who built this conviction

each voice's total push on the score, in conviction points across every mention — supports and opposes · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Chamath
Chamath 51%
1 scoring event · 53% of moves
+42.0 → net +42.0
Friedberg
Friedberg 42%
2 scoring events · 32% of moves
+13.1 / -12.0 → net +1.1
Sacks
Sacks 48%
1 scoring event · 15% of moves
+0.0 / -12.0 → net -12.0

⏳ decay drained -24.7 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one

Score events

episodekindΔafternote
E121 2023-03-24 init +42.0 42.0 E121 born by Chamath (explicit_prediction x3)
E121 2023-03-24 oppose -12.0 30.0 E121 Sacks opposes x2
E121 2023-03-24 oppose -12.0 18.0 E121 Friedberg opposes x2
E122 2023-03-31 decay -0.7 17.3 E122 silent
E123 2023-04-07 decay -0.7 16.6 E123 silent
E124 2023-04-14 decay -0.7 15.9 E124 silent
E125 2023-04-21 decay -0.6 15.3 E125 silent
E126 2023-04-28 decay -0.6 14.7 E126 silent
E128 2023-05-12 decay -0.6 14.1 E128 silent
E129 2023-05-19 decay -0.6 13.5 E129 silent
E130 2023-05-26 decay -0.5 13.0 E130 silent
E131 2023-06-02 decay -0.5 12.5 E131 silent
E132 2023-06-10 reinforce +13.1 25.6 E132 Friedberg support x2 (flipped from oppose)
E133 2023-06-16 decay -1.0 24.6 E133 silent
E134 2023-06-24 decay -1.0 23.6 E134 silent
E135 2023-07-01 decay -0.9 22.6 E135 silent
E136 2023-07-09 decay -0.9 21.7 E136 silent
E137 2023-07-14 decay -0.9 20.9 E137 silent
E139 2023-07-27 decay -0.8 20.0 E139 silent
E140 2023-08-04 decay -0.8 19.2 E140 silent
E141 2023-08-11 decay -0.8 18.5 E141 silent
E142 2023-08-18 decay -0.7 17.7 E142 silent
E143 2023-08-25 decay -0.7 17.0 E143 silent
E144 2023-09-01 decay -0.7 16.3 E144 silent
E146 2023-09-22 decay -0.7 15.7 E146 silent
E147 2023-09-29 decay -0.6 15.1 E147 silent
E148 2023-10-07 decay -0.6 14.5 E148 silent
E149 2023-10-13 decay -0.6 13.9 E149 silent
E150 2023-10-20 decay -0.6 13.3 E150 silent
E151 2023-10-27 decay -0.5 12.8 E151 silent
E152 2023-11-03 decay -0.5 12.3 E152 silent
E156 2023-12-08 decay -0.5 11.8 E156 silent
E157 2023-12-16 decay -0.5 11.3 E157 silent
E158 2023-12-23 decay -0.5 10.9 E158 silent
E159 2023-12-29 decay -0.4 10.4 E159 silent
E160 2024-01-06 decay -0.4 10.0 E160 silent
E161 2024-01-13 decay -0.4 9.6 E161 silent
E162 2024-01-19 decay -0.4 9.2 E162 silent
E163 2024-01-26 decay -0.4 8.9 E163 silent
E164 2024-02-02 decay -0.4 8.5 E164 silent
E165 2024-02-09 decay -0.3 8.2 E165 silent
E166 2024-02-16 decay -0.3 7.8 E166 silent
E167 2024-02-23 decay -0.3 7.5 E167 silent
E168 2024-03-01 decay -0.3 7.2 E168 silent
E169 2024-03-08 decay -0.3 6.9 E169 silent
E170 2024-03-15 decay -0.3 6.7 E170 silent
E171 2024-03-22 decay -0.3 6.4 E171 silent