The problem is that SVB tied up their liquidity for 10 years at a yield far lower than they would get with more secure investments after the FED's rate hikes.
The specific assets they invested into are immaterial.
The irrational exuberance in price increases in this segment of the market over the past 4-5 years is not sustainable.
It is not logical, sane or normal for houses that were valued at $150k five years ago to now be valued at $400k in some suburbs and metro areas.
How much would you spend on the house if you're only alternative is to watch your capital disappear
If I'm worried about 10% or 20% disappearing to inflation, I'm certainly not paying 2x on an investment to prevent that.
Capital needs somewhere to go as long as money keeps being printed. If there is more capital than profitable investment opportunities, it will flow into housing.
As a thought experiment to illustrate the point, imagine a world where there are no investment opportunities and the only place to store value is cash or housing. In this case, housing prices will continue to climb because money keeps being accumulated and there is no place to put it.
Of course this is a hyperbolic example, but I think our world is moving closer towards it as truly valuable Investments dry up. Certainly in the short term, and possibly in the longer term as well
Narrow banking never works because at the first regulatory lapse (my employer got fined 200M because we used whatsapp, not even for committing crimes), BAM no money left for deposit liabilities.
And dont forget here that as long as people eventually pay their mortgage in the expected default risk, the money will eventually come back, at an opportunity cost.