Everything is pointing towards that it was a risky bank, with a "unusually high reliance on corporate/VC funding". Maybe SVB themselves downplayed this? Take

Everything is pointing towards that it was a risky bank, with a "unusually high reliance on corporate/VC funding". Maybe SVB themselves downplayed this? Take https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/silicon-valley-bank-failure-amv.pdf https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/ins... as an example: > The liabiity issue: extreme reliance on institutional/VC funding rather than traditional retail deposits > While capital, wholesale funding and loan to deposit ratios improved for many US banks since 2008, there are exceptions. As shown in the first chart, SIVB was in a league of its own: a high level of loans plus securities as a percentage of deposits, and very low reliance on stickier retail deposits as a share of total deposits. Bottom line: SIVB carved out a distinct and riskier niche than other banks, setting itself up for large potential capital shortfalls in case of rising interest rates, deposit outflows and forced asset sales.