[friendzis]

> the underlying assets were and are strong-- if that were true they would have found a private sector solution early in the weekend

One does not follow the other. The triggering problem here were unmatched maturities of assets and liabilities, i.e. liquidity crunch. They have created that liquidity by selling some assets at a loss and tried to recoup that loss from investors.

But that was not the problem. The problem was now-imminent bank run, potentially requiring up to ${total-deposits } liquidity injections and unclear future then. Once VCs told their portfolio companies to pull out svb was effectively toast.

[loandbehold]

Bigger bank with more cash could have bought them, fixing liquidity issue. This didn't happen, suggesting that there's problems with bank's assets, not just liquidity.

[friendzis]

Yes and no. There were 4 stages in this drama. 1. Build up where books became imbalanced 2. Imbalanced maturities draining liquidity 3. Liquidity issues being prominently voiced causing bank run 4. Aftermath.

Once the situation evolved from stage 2 to stage 3, the liquidity hole expanded from ${gap-in-maturities} to roughly ${total-deposits} and that is only to contain immediate issue, fixing books would have possibly required additional capital.

You are probably right, a bigger bank with liquidity could have saved SVB at stage 2. However, the situation evolved from stage 2 to stage 3 too quick for any meaningful deal to take place while still in stage 2.