[dmix]

We don't know who bought SVB yet it will likely be announced tomorrow (EST/PST timezone) probably. The US gov announcing the full confidence of deposits wasn't merely an altruistic move, they likely had a buyer at the time of announcement and maybe a secondary commitment to support the mortgage debt which caused the whole thing.

[TMWNN]

You may be right, but the news coverage I've seen implies that the full backstop of all deposits regardless of size was announced because there is no buyer for SVB. Basically, there just wasn't enough time for buyers to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger.

[dmix]

Ah that's very possible. It makes sense their main objective was calming the market given other banks failing, committing ahead of time to finding a long term holder to the $90B mortgage security (in addition to the large set of stable depositor assets they held) was probably a much safer bet than the other options, regardless if a buyer fully committed to either asset group.

[kasey_junk]

I’d guess (and it’s purely a guess) that it was their loan portfolio that made assessing their balance sheet hard to price. MBS’ and long term bonds can be priced using very standard techniques. Loans secured with startup equity warrants on the other hand are tough.

[mdasen]

The announcement from Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC was that depositors would be made whole and that there would be an assessment on banks to cover it. As such, I'd assume that there was no buyer.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337

> No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer... Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

While they say "no losses will be borne by the taxpayer", making banks pay who will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying - or at least a substantial portion of taxpayers who are banking customers. Maybe banks won't be able to pass along the costs through increased fees or lower rates and will have to eat the costs.

[shapefrog]

> will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying

By that logic the cup of coffee I bought earlier was paid for by the taxpayer because I a taxpayer paid for it.