HomeNewsOther NewsAmerican who tipped Lehman Brothers collapse forecasts Credit Suisse will be next...

American who tipped Lehman Brothers collapse forecasts Credit Suisse will be next bank failure


Related stories

- Advertisement -

By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter For Mailonline and Claudia Aoraha For Dailymail.Com

09:55 14 Mar 2023, upgraded 11:38 14 Mar 2023

  • Robert Kiyosaki – author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, infamously called 2008 crisis 
  • Credit Suisse insists it is conservatively placed versus rate of interest threats

The specialist who forecasted the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 today alerted that Credit Suisse might be the beside go under after the failure of 2 Wall Street banks left the United States bond market in ‘major difficulty’.

- Advertisement -

Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, provided the dismal forecast as markets crashed following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank last Friday and Signature Bank on Sunday.

Experts think that the tremblings will not activate a brand-new worldwide banking crisis like the dreadful one in 2008 – however anticipate it will trigger a brand-new credit crunch, making it more difficult and more costly for customers and businesses to obtain money as banks attempt to limitations threats.

Speaking on Fox News’ Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Mr Kiyosaki said: ‘The issue is the bond market, and my forecast, I called Lehman Brothers years earlier, and I believe the next bank to go is Credit Suisse, due to the fact that the bond market is crashing.’ 

- Advertisement -

He made the forecast the other day, simply hours prior to Credit Suisse itself confessed has a ‘product weak point’ as the cost of guaranteeing its bonds from defaulting reached the greatest level considering that the bank’s development in 1856. 

But the bank emphatically rejected the claims it is under risk, with CEO Ulrich Koerner stating today: ‘Our SVB credit direct exposure is not material’, while experts firmly insisted the world’s seventh biggest financial investment bank, headquartered in Zurich, is held to greater policies in Switzerland compared to SVB and other United States banks.  ‘We are conservatively placed versus any rate of interest threats’, the senior source said.

The FTSE 100 is down once again today after more than £50 billion was rubbed out the UK’s most significant stock exchange on Monday after the 2nd and 3rd most significant bank failures in United States history startled financiers around the world. On Wall Street significant United States banks lost around $90billion in stock exchange worth on Monday.

Wall Street specialist Robert Kiyosaki informed Fix News the other day that he fears that Credit Suisse might be under risk due to the skyrocketing bond markets. The bank rejects this
The UK’s FTSE 100 tanked after SVB collapsed, with banking stocks taking a big £50billion hit

The collapse of SVB is the most significant banking failure considering that 2008’s banking crisis. On Sunday another lending institution, New York’s Signature Bank, likewise collapsed. It has actually shocked worldwide markets and triggered panic with financiers who has actually been disposing bank stocks, despite the fact that the United States Government actioned in to secure clients and HSBC rescued the UK arm after purchasing it for £1. 

- Advertisement -

There is likewise panic due to the fact that trading projections have actually been destroyed over night with rates of interest now forecasted to be frozen, and even cut, in the United States and the UK. 

Until SVB’s collapse, the Bank of England was anticipated to enforce a 0.5% increase, however traders in New York and London are now wagering that reserve banks in New York and London will leave rates the same to stable the marketplaces. But as an outcome, Government bond costs skyrocketed – raising the cost of loaning.

Wall Street giants moved, with Citi off 7.5pc and Wells Fargo down 7.1pc. But it was the local banks which saw the most significant falls, with San Francisco-based First Republic losing as much as 78pc, as trading was consistently stopped due to the fact that of the volatility – prior to partially recuperating.

That was in spite of the bank’s employer stating it had actually had the ability to satisfy withdrawal needs, after being assisted by extra financing from JP Morgan. While not having the scale of the larger New York loan providers, it still has a substantial existence, with possessions of £174bn and deposits of £145bn at the end of in 2015.

Gary Greenwood, banking expert at Shore Capital, said while it was a particular set of issues that had actually caused SVB’s collapse, there was a ‘basic uneasiness in the market’ – even if no particular issues were being highlighted.

‘Even if the collapse of numerous mid-tier banks does not become a full-blown systemic crisis, it will more than most likely trigger a credit crunch,’ said Paul Ashworth, Chief North America Economist at Capital Economics. 

Credit Suisse, which is headquartered in Zurich (imagined), might be the beside fold according to one specialist
On Tuesday the bank said ‘outflows (had) stabilised to much lower levels however had actually not yet reversed’. This chart demonstrates how the cost of guaranteeing versus Credit Suisse default (CDS cost) struck a record the other day in the middle of the SVB fallout
Kiyosaki (right) imagined with Donald Trump in 2006

The offer did not avoid additional falls in banking show Barclays down 6 percent, HSBC off by 4 percent, and Natwest and Lloyds down 5 percent – cleaning £50billion off the combined worth of the FTSE 100 companies. 

HSBC grabs UK arm of stopped working lending institution Silicon Valley Bank for simply £1 in quote to avoid tech sector collapse 


In London, shares in Virgin Money – a reasonably little lending institution – fell 9pc, or 14.75p, to 149.75p, Barclays moved 6.3pc, or 9.94p, to 147.48p. In Europe, Credit Suisse – which just recently published a record loss – dived 3pc and Italy’s Unicredit fell 9pc. 

President Biden the other day assured Americans ‘the banking system is safe’ – as worries of contagion after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank triggered another Wall Street bloodbath.

Shares in a variety of America’s local loan providers suffered eye-watering sell-offs even after authorities put in location a backstop ensuring all of the country’s deposits.

In Britain, HSBC’s emergency situation rescue of SVB’s British arm was invited by the tech companies who had actually feared collapse if they might not access their funds by the other day early morning. The lending institution – Europe’s biggest – will supposedly inject £2bn into the business.

But banking shares in London and throughout Europe dropped in the middle of uneasiness about the broader health of the sector – dragging the FTSE 100 2.6pc lower, cleaning more than £50bn off the worth of its constituent business. The chaos followed federal government authorities and main lenders on both sides of the Atlantic rushed over the weekend to consist of the instant fallout from California-based SVB’s collapse on Friday.

It was the most significant banking failure considering that 2008’s banking crisis. On Sunday another lending institution, New York’s Signature Bank, likewise collapsed.

In a telecasted address, the United States president said: ‘Americans can have self-confidence that the banking system is safe. Your deposits will exist when you require them.’

Biden said those accountable for the crisis should be held to account and said the supervisors of stopped working loan providers taken control of by federal authorities ought to be fired.

He pushed for harder policy for the sector and promised that taxpayers would not bear the losses of any failures.

Biden likewise explained that financiers in the bank ‘will not be secured’. He included: ‘They intentionally took a danger and when the threat didn’t settle, financiers lose their money. That’s how commercialism works.’

Silicon Valley Bank collapse: Everything you require to understand

The collapse of tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank triggered worries throughout Wall Street that the banking system was being paralyzed by an unrelenting cycle of rate of interest increases

Why did Silicon Valley Bank stop working? 

Silicon Valley Bank had actually already been struck hard by a rough spot for innovation business in current months and the Federal Reserve’s aggressive strategy to increase rates of interest to fight inflation intensified its issues. 

The bank held billions of dollars worth of Treasuries and other bonds, which is normal for a lot of banks as they are thought about safe financial investments. 

However, the worth of formerly provided bonds has actually started to fall due to the fact that they pay lower rates of interest than similar bonds provided in today’s greater rate of interest environment. 

Such bonds are not cost a loss unless there is an emergency situation and the bank requires money. Silicon Valley, the bank that collapsed on Friday, had an emergency situation. 

Its clients were mostly start-ups and other tech-centric business that required more money over the previous year, so they started withdrawing their deposits. 

That required the bank to offer a portion of its bonds at a high loss, and the speed of those withdrawals sped up as word spread, efficiently rendering Silicon Valley Bank insolvent. 

What did the federal government do on Sunday? 

The Federal Reserve, the United States Treasury Department, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chose to guarantee all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, in addition to at New York’s Signature Bank, which was taken on Sunday. 

Critically, they accepted guarantee all deposits, above and beyond the limitation on insured deposits of 250,000 dollars (£205,000). 

Many of Silicon Valley’s start-up tech clients and investor had much more than 250,000 dollars at the bank. 

As an outcome, as much as 90% of Silicon Valley’s deposits were uninsured. Without the federal government’s choice to backstop them all, numerous business would have lost funds required to satisfy payroll, pay costs, and keep the lights on. 

The objective of the broadened assurances is to prevent bank runs – where clients hurry to eliminate their money – by developing the Fed’s dedication to securing the deposits of businesses and people and soothing nerves after a traumatic couple of days. 

Also late on Sunday, the Federal Reserve started a broad emergency situation loaning program meant to fortify self-confidence in the country’s monetary system. 

Banks will be enabled to obtain money directly from the Fed in order to cover any prospective rush of consumer withdrawals without being pushed into the kind of money-losing bond sales that would threaten their monetary stability. 

Such fire sales are what triggered Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. If all works as prepared, the emergency situation loaning program might not really need to provide much money. 

Rather, it will assure the general public that the Fed will cover their deposits which it wants to provide huge to do so. There is no cap on the quantity that banks can obtain, aside from their capability to supply security.

How is the program meant to work? 

Unlike its more byzantine efforts to rescue the banking system throughout the monetary crisis of 2007-08, the Fed’s technique this time is fairly uncomplicated. It has actually established a brand-new loaning center with the governmental name Bank Term Funding Programme. 

The program will supply loans to banks, cooperative credit union, and other banks for approximately a year. The banks are being asked to publish Treasuries and other government-backed bonds as security. 

The Fed is being generous in its terms: It will charge a reasonably low rate of interest – simply 0.1 portion points greater than market rates – and it will provide versus the stated value of the bonds, instead of the marketplace worth. 

Lending versus the stated value of bonds is a crucial arrangement that will permit banks to obtain more money due to the fact that the worth of those bonds, a minimum of on paper, has actually fallen as rates of interest have actually moved higher. 

As of completion of in 2015 United States banks held Treasuries and other securities with about 620 billion dollars (£509 billion) of unrealised losses, according to the FDIC. That implies they would take big losses if required to offer those securities to cover a rush of withdrawals. 

How did the banks wind up with such huge losses? 

Ironically, a huge portion of that 620 billion dollars in unrealised losses can be connected to the Federal Reserve’s own rate of interest policies over the previous year. 

In its battle to cool the economy and reduce inflation, the Fed has actually quickly risen its benchmark rate of interest from almost no to about 4.6%. 

That has actually indirectly raised the yield, or interest paid, on a series of federal government bonds, especially two-year Treasuries, which topped 5% up until completion of recently. 

When brand-new bonds show up with greater rates of interest, it makes existing bonds with lower yields much less important if they need to be offered. 

Banks are not required to identify such losses on their books up until they offer those possessions, which Silicon Valley was required to do. –

How crucial are the federal government assurances? 

They are really crucial. Legally, the FDIC is needed to pursue the most inexpensive path when unwinding a bank. 

In the case of Silicon Valley or Signature, that would have indicated adhering to guidelines on the books, indicating that just the very first 250,000 dollars in depositors’ accounts would be covered. 

Going beyond the 250,000 dollar cap needed a choice that the failure of the 2 banks postured a ‘systemic threat’. 

The Fed’s six-member board all reached that conclusion. The FDIC and the Treasury Secretary supported the choice too.

Will these programs spend taxpayer dollars? 

The United States says that ensuring the deposits will not need any taxpayer funds. Instead, any losses from the FDIC’s insurance coverage fund would be renewed by imposing an extra charge on banks. 

Yet Krishna Guha, an expert with the financial investment bank Evercore ISI, said that political challengers will argue that the greater FDIC costs will ‘eventually fall on little banks and Main Street business’. 

That, in theory, might cost customers and businesses in the long run. 

Will all of it work? 

Mr Guha and other experts state that the federal government’s action is extensive and ought to stabilise the banking system, though share costs for medium-sized banks, comparable to Silicon Valley and Signature, plunged on Monday. 

Paul Ashworth, an economic expert at Capital Economics, said the Fed’s loaning program implies banks ought to have the ability to ‘ride out the storm’.

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here