Why would customers be pulling deposits unless you are offering lower than market interest rate? If T-bills are 3%, they can pay depositors 2% now and so whatever condition kept the customers there at -1% risk premium would still keep them there. No run on the bank. And given they are T-bills, duration is minimal, so $1000 might be worth $990 even before coupons. Whoop-de-doo!

There would only be a problem if the bank's credit deteriorated in its risky assets, enough to freak depositors out.

> Why would customers be pulling deposits unless you are offering lower than market interest rate?

Any number of reasons, particularly if all your customers are in the same industry. If you're "Silicon Valley Bank" and there's a downturn in Silicon Valley, well, here you are.

Yeah, this is how it's similar to silvergate. The main issue silvergate had was a lack of diversification of their liabilities, I.e. their depositors were all crypto. So when crypto hit a liquidity crises, it cascaded to silvergate. The same thing could theoretically happen to SVB, although that would look very bad on tech, since tech shouldn't really be an industry unto itself. Ideally, tech is just technology, and its application is across any industry.

This is incorrect, as we learned from Silvergate. Customers pulled their deposits for reasons unrelated to the bank (in Silvergate’s case, the customers of the crypto exchanges wanted all their money back, so the crypto exchanges had to withdraw their deposits from Silvergate).

As Levine put it, it’s not an asset problem, it’s a liability problem.

It is not unrelated to the bank. They took concentrated callable funding that somehow was not matched to the liquidity of their assets. They took a risk.

This doesn't work either. Remember, the reason that the market value of the T-bills in their reserves has dropped is that the interest rate on them is lower than the current interest rate that people can get by buying them now, so the bank likely cannot afford to pay their customers a market interest rate of 1% below that. The only way for the hold-to-maturity value of their reserves to actually be realised is if customers don't withdraw their deposits and they don't have to substantially increase the interest rates they pay in order to achieve that - otherwise they're likely to run out of money, either quickly or slowly.

You nailed it I think.

Right now there will be a lot of chatter if the root cause was industry concentration, mark to market, junior VCs scaring gulible founders, or as you pointed out: duration risk.

I think in five years the common narrative will be about duration risk.

To spell out what you hinted at: SVB will collapse at some point in the next few years. The only scenario they survive is if they survive this bank run, and then soonsih the fed lowers interest rates by a ton.

Otherwise even without this bank run SVB will still slowly be forced to sell off more and more HTM assets. Core reason being they cannot cashflow wise offer market rate interest on deposits. Clients _would_ move their money to better paying banks, not everyone but too many.

Thus this bank run only accelerates the inevitable. The interest broader note is how other bigger banks have or have not managed their exposure to duration. And special eyes towards the Japanese MegaBanks, double so if the bank of Japan does raise rates.

I was talking about offering it to new deposits. If your old deposits are not duration-matched then yes, you are screwed.

This is why there is a difference between a banks assets and their liquid assets.

If the T-Bill has a maturity beyond 90 days it doesn’t qualify as a liquid asset.