[fach]

Aren’t the order of operations here incorrect? They were experiencing a lack of deposits due to VC pullback due to the interest rate rise, while depositors did not cut spending. This led to a liquidity crunch where they needed to sell discounted bonds to fill the gap. When the gap was conveyed to shareholders, the run began. If this is true, isn’t marking to market providing feedback about a potential liquidity crunch much earlier, ideally before the crunch even begins?

[fnordpiglet]

The “when the gap” bit is the piece that’s suspect to me. This isn’t an irregular occurrence in the world. The events are a little fishy to me because this isn’t crisis material. Banks go public precisely for the purpose of having access to additional liquidity in situations like this. The balance sheet hole was tiny compared to their assets.

Liquidity calculations for banks definitely include mark to market for HTM portfolios. But even then they were legally deemed sufficiently liquid. The run on the bank wasn’t expected or normal behavior.

[wstuartcl]

this is why imho I see the pull out of the clients especially those that happened before the sale offer even came to term as an orchestrated ploy to tank the bank and then be in a position to offer shark bridge loans to those impacted. These were not naive clients making the move early -- and to me it seems less to do about the actual bank asset state and more to do with wanting blood in the water for wringing out equity and loan shark rates on those bridge offers.