Lots of "thought leaders" on the hellsite and elsewhere are already bullshitting about the #SVB failure and blaming it entirely on the banks balance sheet. That's a reductive and shallow take. Their balance sheet and naked risk was a factor but, at the end of the day, SVB was very well capitalized and their spread was 2.00% as of last quarter. They went under because their CEO fucked around, there was a $43 billion bank run but SVB could only come up with $42 billion, and investors panicked.
That last part is key: investors panicked. One of the articles I linked earlier in this thread mentioned that Goldman Sachs had secured the capital the bank would need to survive hours before the bank run. Then, investors panicked. By end of the day Thursday, the bank was $938 million in the red, but that was after a 25% drawdown. Remember those stress tests after the 2008 meltdown? #SVB would have passed them with flying colors up to the "Severe Stress Scenario"
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp1203.pdf
That last part is key: investors panicked. One of the articles I linked earlier in this thread mentioned that Goldman Sachs had secured the capital the bank would need to survive hours before the bank run. Then, investors panicked. By end of the day Thursday, the bank was $938 million in the red, but that was after a 25% drawdown. Remember those stress tests after the 2008 meltdown? #SVB would have passed them with flying colors up to the "Severe Stress Scenario"