Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen stressed in a statement that taxpayers would bear none of the burden of protecting the depositors. Their funds will be backstopped by a pool of money that is regularly paid into by U.S. banks, which currently has more than $100 billion in it.
SVB depositors “will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13,” the government said in a statement, adding that taxpayers won't be responsible for any losses associated with SVB's resolution.
无论是否 FDIC insured，明天都可以取款。而且说 taxpayers won't be responsible for any losses associated with SVB's resolution。
我估计是这样：FDIC 看了 SVB's book 后判定 bank asset mark-to-market value 远大于 deposits，当即建议出个 resolution，让所有 depositor 明天都可以取款，平息市场不安情绪。但 insolvency 还是真的，也就是说 asset < liability。谁受损失呢？第一当然是 SVB 的 equity holder，股价归零，第二是 SVB 的 creditor (including bond bonder)，估计也拿不回多少。
首先FDIC接手存款账户很及时，所有存款并没被拿去抵债。本来就没啥损失。
其次硅谷银行的债券，拿到期也没啥损失。但是因为发生挤兑它等不了那么久
这里面估计有故事。虽然开始因为不少公司取钱造成现金不足，但是和中央银行拆借还是可以解决。但是突然间因为资不抵债的消息走漏，JPM等投行通知客户提款，直接导致挤兑发生，它坚持不了那么jiu银行在短时间里崩溃。
此时政府介入保证存款是正确的选择。保障存款，债务拍卖。次银行的投资人有损失也不要紧，保障存款部分就保证了很多公司的正常运营。防止骨牌效应。
政府实际上不需要出什么钱。联储会马上拿出250亿保证其它银行可以拆借，防止其它银行挤兑的发生。
这事儿，基本就这样了。
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen stressed in a statement that taxpayers would bear none of the burden of protecting the depositors. Their funds will be backstopped by a pool of money that is regularly paid into by U.S. banks, which currently has more than $100 billion in it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03/12/silicon-valley-bank-deposits/?
股东，
投资硅谷银行投资产品的投资人等等
SIVB的问题在于他们多年来按照联储会的政策行事。zero interest and QE. 在联储会迅速转变政策的时候，因为船大难掉头。就陷入了利率的陷阱。
但是要有足够现金的话，挺到债券到期就可以了。问题在于，这个银行是初创公司集中的银行，目前这个环境初创公司在股市无法集资，只有靠烧现金度日。就造成大量的提款。最后的稻草应该是JPM使坏，分吃了这条大鱼。
先看看FDIC 规定的程序
原来说25W以下的明天就能取，现在说
SVB depositors “will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13,” the government said in a statement, adding that taxpayers won't be responsible for any losses associated with SVB's resolution.
无论是否 FDIC insured，明天都可以取款。而且说 taxpayers won't be responsible for any losses associated with SVB's resolution。
我估计是这样：FDIC 看了 SVB's book 后判定 bank asset mark-to-market value 远大于 deposits，当即建议出个 resolution，让所有 depositor 明天都可以取款，平息市场不安情绪。但 insolvency 还是真的，也就是说 asset < liability。谁受损失呢？第一当然是 SVB 的 equity holder，股价归零，第二是 SVB 的 creditor (including bond bonder)，估计也拿不回多少。
股票损失 投资者承担，银行已经提前把奖金都给员工发了，肯定工资也发了，401K之类的只要不是买的本公司的股票就没事，当然纳税人不会有损失了。
不幸的是，计划的销售日期恰好发生在倒塌之前。给人留下如此错误的印象
越是大厂OFFER越低所以别信什么大厂的神话
(发自我的文学城离线浏览器)