[rcme]

It's more likely that the 50B number doesn't represent the full FDIC coverage for deposits. For instance, this article claims that the bank was about to have 100B withdrawn the day the FDIC took over: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/28/svb-customers-tried-to-pull-...

I think most likely is that the FDIC has had the bank for a number of weeks and allowed a large number of withdrawals. Those withdrawals are counted as part of the 18B cost to the FDIC, but aren't part of the 50B that was sold.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the 50B number doesn't represent the full FDIC coverage for deposits

At some point in the past, sure, there were more deposits being emergency insured by the FDIC, which might reduce that 5,200x figure by up to an order of magnitude. I would also clarify, however, that the emergency insurance kicked in two days after the FDIC put SVB into receivership.

> those withdrawals are counted as part of the 18B cost to the FDIC

No, they’re not. The discount offered on the assets is where the loss comes from.

[rcme]

The discount was only 16.5B

[JumpCrisscross]

> discount was only 16.5B

And that's not the sole source of the FDIC's possible losses. (Again, deposits being withdrawn doesn't cause losses per se. The liability and assets sold are struck simultaneously.)

[rcme]

It's probably better if you just read the FDIC statement: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23023.html

> As of March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, National Association, had approximately $167 billion in total assets and about $119 billion in total deposits. Today's transaction included the purchase of about $72 billion of Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, National Association's assets at a discount of $16.5 billion. Approximately $90 billion in securities and other assets will remain in the receivership for disposition by the FDIC. In addition, the FDIC received equity appreciation rights in First Citizens BancShares, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, common stock with a potential value of up to $500 million.

> The FDIC estimates the cost of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank to its Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) to be approximately $20 billion. The exact cost will be determined when the FDIC terminates the receivership.

[JumpCrisscross]

I'm not sure how this furthers your point. You added $90bn and $50bn; the former assets held by the FDIC, the latter about the amount of deposits the acquirer assumed from the FDIC. That doesn't make sense.

[rcme]

It does make sense. The FDIC is holding 90B in assets from SVB. Those assets were purchased with deposits. First Citizens actually bought 72B in assets for 50B. So 72B + 90B is pretty close to the original 167B. Using 90B as an estimate, given that we know SVB bought those assets with depositor funds, does make sense if you’re just trying to make a rough estimate.