No one has published what kind of discount the gov't applied to the assets it is leveraging to make uninsured SVB depositors whole. For all we know the government correctly forecast the likely future losses, allocated some extra assets from the SVB carcass, and functionally prepaid those maybe rate increases.

The problem, as it were, isn't some lurking or hidden loss, it's arguably that these answers aren't currently available and we don't have the slightest idea in the public what will happen if profits result from the bailout venture. This shouldn't be a "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" redux.

Well we already know there are some nominal losses, because the FDIC did take over SVB.

If you can recover full capital from a selloff, SVB wouldn't be insolvent in the first place. The reality is that you can't, which is why we are here. The haircut is probably, also, deeper than 1-10% because otherwise SVB would have borrowed this money against its own "capital". Clearly, that was not possible too. The haircut seems to be quite big but there is no information whatsoever about how big the losses are.

They don’t have enough treasuries to cover deposits even if they could liquidate them for par value. They’re also holding a bunch of startup loans which I doubt are going to fetch the valuation they assigned to them on their balance sheet, otherwise they would’ve been acquired whole by one of the big banks. Nobody put in a bid for the whole book of business, there must be a good reason for that. Not wanting to assume the credit risk of SVBs loan portfolio is a reasonable guess.

The value of those bonds is less than what it says on the balance sheet. They were not able to sell them at price X meaning they are no longer worth that much. The rate on those bonds is less than inflation, meaning keeping them to maturity won't recover original value.

Keep in mind SVB was not the only bank. 3 banks went under (at least so far).

> Janet has just declared that.

Since 1933.

It always has been.