Yeah, SVB failed because of an deposit duration/asset maturity mismatch, which couldn’t be corrected due to the cost of rolling those assets, which was a result of terrible risk management on their balance sheet. Their completely loss of liquidity was a function of that. Not a function of the bank being insolvent.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thanks for clarifying that, Mike.

Yep!

Borrow short lend long is the root of many a bankrupt bank.

Surprised people still put money in such institutions.

They get crunched every single rate hike cycle.

I guess people have short memories or a too young to know better.

if they were to liquidate the rest of their long duration assets at current market value would they have enough capital to cover deposits?

Probably not. But I’m assuming someone (fed or someone with big pockets) would be willing to trade them cash for the guaranteed face value of the bonds at maturity, with a haircut of course to make it worth their while

But didn't those mistakes then end up making them insolvent?

To me, if you can't pay out what's owed at any moment, you're insolvent. Certainly their practices led to that, no?