undefined | Better HN

0 pointss1artibartfast3y ago0 comments

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

0 comments

FDIC took over because SVB failed to make a margin call Thursday 9 March. Not having the money today while operating as a going concern, and having the money never after a liquidation, are different things.

xenadu023y ago

No, that is not known at this time. It will take a few years to fully wind down the assets so as of right now no one knows if recovery will be <100%, 100% of deposits, or >100% of deposits (in which case general creditors may get some money).

The only thing we can be certain of is shareholders are wiped out and general creditors will take a significant haircut.

s1artibartfastOP3y ago

I is pretty clear they are underwater from their SEC filings. You know what exactly what their assets are and what their the fair market value of their securities. They reported the fair market value of their underwater loans.

I guess the FED could have bullied some banks into buying the securities at a higher rate, but the books themselves are transparent.

xenadu023y ago

The market fluctuates. If those assets are held to maturity most will payoff without losses... even some of the subprime mortgage dreck from 2007 ended up recovering, SVB's assets are far less impaired.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

unyttigfjelltol3y ago

xenadu023y ago

The only thing we can be certain of is shareholders are wiped out and general creditors will take a significant haircut.

s1artibartfastOP3y ago

I guess the FED could have bullied some banks into buying the securities at a higher rate, but the books themselves are transparent.

xenadu023y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse