[civicsquid]

Past losses aside, the press release says that there are about $180B in deposits with the bank holding about $210B in assets. Assuming the FDIC liquidates and restructures the bank, I don’t see why deposits could not be made whole.

If there were fewer assets then deposits, then yes the 250k+ accounts are probably out of luck.

[oceanplexian]

The "assets" are actually held-to-maturity securities (bonds) that are yielding less than the risk free rate. Who would want to buy a bond that yields 2% when you can buy treasures that yield 4%. So while they might have $210B in paper assets but there's no chance they will be unable to unload them without taking a loss, putting the bank upside down.

[ok_dad]

> Who would want to buy a bond that yields 2% when you can buy treasures that yield 4%.

Whatever bank/organization that wants to have SVB's customers, probably. If an even bigger bank comes in, one which can take on those lukewarm assets for a decade without risk, then they can immediately position themselves as the "new SVB" and get a bunch of VCs and startups as customers. I assume that they could stand to profit some from such an arrangement, but I'm not a banker, so maybe not?

[petesergeant]

> Who would want to buy a bond that yields 2% when you can buy treasures that yield 4%

The government, to protect the economy

[Me1000]

The federal government doesn't need liquidity in the same way that a bank does, why would they even need to sell at all?

[vineyardmike]

And restructuring tends not be stay “gov owned” - the government assumes ownership to stabilize the market then tries to sell off the business to another business. Often there’s some incentive to assume a massive amount of customers and assets. The gov may even take on the intermediate loss (the FCID is an insurance agency after all).

[Me1000]

Yeah, I can see why in general the government wouldn't want to hold on to assets, but bonds are kind of a special class of asset in that they do eventually mature and will naturally just be something they don't need to manage (within a relatively short time period too). If you expect that the sell off could take years to complete, some of those bonds will be halfway to maturity by the time they're sold.

If I'm the FDIC and I have the opportunity to return 100% of the funds to depositors at the cost of just holding on to a bond for a few more years than I otherwise would, that seems like a tradeoff I'd make to stabilize a lot of companies. (I'm of course biased here)

[bentlegen]

Will those assets still be worth $210B as the days tick by? I'm not a macro financial analyst, but I have to imagine trying to liquidate $210B of bonds, stocks, etc. will cause at least some of that value to fall – that's a big number.

[vineyardmike]

Once the FDIC kicks in they can sell off to a different bank which can absorb them without touching the open market. Alternatively the FDIC can guarantee the bank for the duration necessary to sell assets slowly. They could likely sell the bank as a whole to another bank if assets>liabilities without too much disruption.

[nemothekid]

If someone well capitalized buys the bank, then they don't need to liquidate. The bonds aren't worthless, they just trade much lower now that interest rates have risen, however if you can wait until they mature you will get your money + interest.