[jpgvm]

Likely plenty. Most of the smaller banks without sophisticated risk management likely haven't hedged against interest rate risk or adjusted their bond portfolios as interest rates rose. Unfortunately none of the regulatory frameworks even take interest rate risk into account, likely because of a 30 year bull run in bonds made everyone complacent to it. Generally speaking they only really monitor stress under a certain amount of bad debt (i.e failed loans) and risk level of assets held. T Bills get basically perfect zero risk score despite being heavily exposed to interest rate risk.

[JumpCrisscross]

> none of the regulatory frameworks even take interest rate risk into account

This is false. The Fed’s stress tests and Basel III specifically measure duration.

[jpgvm]

They measure duration risk on short term assets but not long term assets like SVBs bonds which are (for better or worse) classified under different rules that allow them to be held to maturity without needing to account for mark-to-market losses for capital assessment purposes.

As a result stress tests which measure various interest rate scenarios, deposit withdrawals and increased bad debt ratios aren't overly affected by these long duration bonds.

That is all good and well as long as these assets truly are held to maturity and forced selling doesn't take place.

Then again, maybe it's fine. These tests are meant to ensure the banks can handle changing economic conditions. They aren't meant to be able to protect banks against a bank run of this scale.

[thuridas]

Isn't that why 10 year bonds are much riskier?

[JumpCrisscross]

> why 10 year bonds are much riskier

Yes, and why they yield more.