[ttt333]

respectfully, I'm not so sure. The decline in bonds applies to all fixed-rate securities. The only alternatives would have been just straight up cash (bad with inflation) or riskier, less-liquid assets (non-tradable loans with floating rates, for example). They are limited on the latter by risk weighting, and I'm not sure having looser risk controls on the asset side would really help confidence in the banking sector.

please feel free to disagree!

[Retric]

Inflation isn’t a concern here. Depositors hand a bank 1 billion and X% inflation hits, well the bank still only owes them 1 billion.

[ttt333]

Yeah that's true, it matter more for net-interest-margin / interest income generation in a rising-rate environment. Good point

[zamnos]

a depositor isn't going to deposit 1 billion and only expect 1 billion back out months later. that's some poor people shit. Large sums of money like that, banks pay you for the pleasure of holding it. So a bank offering 4.5% APY like SVB offers would owe an extra 3.2 million to the billionaire if they look at their account a month later.

The problem is, the underlying assets that SVB owns will only pay them back at 1% APY, and only in 20 years or whatever, and the billionaire has been promised 4.5%APY and is expecting to have access to one months worth of interest next month. that 3.5 difference is thus a huge problem for SVB.

[aftbit]

Could they instead hold short-term treasuries (as short as 4 weeks, I believe) and refuse to honor large withdraws until they mature?

[ttt333]

Short term treasuries are definitely pretty common on the asset side, but if you refuse to honor withdrawals on demand deposits you won't have a bank anymore and the FDIC will step in to wind things down