The bonds themselves were liquid. The bank didn't want to liquidate them, but that doesn't mean that they weren't liquid. This was a liquidity crisis (bank ru

The bonds themselves were liquid. The bank didn't want to liquidate them, but that doesn't mean that they weren't liquid. This was a liquidity crisis (bank run) which sparked a solvency issue, not a solvency issue. No. SVB had liabilities significantly in excess of the value of their assets. They were, by definition, balance sheet insolvent. The "hold to maturity" accounting practice made it legal for them to pretend that the value of their long term bonds hadn't changed, but that's just an accounting figleaf; the actual value of those bonds had factually dropped.