News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by kmod on Friday March 10, 2023 @12:51PM (#35098148)
These statements seem pretty contradictory:

- "it had reserves in excess of its liabilities" - "They can't unwind that position and cover all possible demands"

I'm guessing that you're thinking of some sort of valuation of their assets that says something like "well they're really worth more than they're currently valued at", which is a common claim on this story but it's a pretty bold one?

Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by gumby on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:08PM (#35098411)
That's a good question. The key is when I wrote that it was a liquidity crisis.

An analogy: you (hypothetically) keep your money in some 6-month CDs, with about a month's worth of expenses in your savings account in case something unexpected comes up. Then you lose your job and by the end of the month you haven't found a new job. You could liquidate your CDs, but the early-liquidation penalty might mean you still won't have enough to pay your bills. If only you could wait for maturity.

So yes, at mark-to-market firesale prices that means SVB can't pay out in full today to every account holder and so FDIC has to step in. But FDIC (who has a very large balance sheet) also seizes those assets. They give the accounts to another bank. Then FDIC can unwind those seized assets in whatever timely fashion it wants.

There's a second factor: in a secular banking crisis they may pay out only the guarantee (currently $250K; for a while (during the GFC IIRC) it was temporarily $500K. But we are not in a secular banking crisis; not only has the Fed completely restructured bank reserve requirements in response to the GFC but SVB is a single small bank, not even a regional one, with a run-of-the-mill crisis. This is the kind of failure that you put all the new hires on because they can learn without any up-to-the-minute crisis stress. This is what they learned during onboarding :-). In such a situation it's better to pay out move than the $250K, probably several million, to prevent any "contagion" (since SVB has "Silicon Valley" in its name). They could

I have no special knowledge of FDIC's internal thinking: they could make them whole now, or make up to $250K whole now and pay out some later, or yes, they could force a few people to take a haircut. Those (small number of) panicing VCs would be better off calling their senators than their portfolio companies.

PS: BTW hypothetical you has more options than those above: you could take out credit card debt, perhaps tap a HELOC you might already have in place, etc. SVB had similar options: they did have a $15B fire sale and got an investment from General Atlantic. It wasn't enough.

Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by ummonk on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:01PM (#35098291)
They're just saying that many of the assets are insufficiently liquid to be instantly sold off to cover all the withdrawals during a bank run.
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by kmod on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:19PM (#35099446)
I don't think anyone is saying this? The decrease in value is due to wrong-way interest rate exposure, not due to a fire sale
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by bagels on Friday March 10, 2023 @03:09PM (#35100186)
Well, it's going to be both. Dumping 200b of bonds isn't going to yield premium prices.
Re:FDIC Takes over Silicon Valley Bank by ummonk on Friday March 10, 2023 @08:06PM (#35103844)
The decrease in value was due to exposure to long duration securities yes.

The closure of the bank was due to a classic bank run after depositors panicked upon hearing of the decrease in value. They had 45 billion in withdrawals in a single day, out of ~175 billion in deposits. No bank could survive that.