You are arguing from the perspective that the mark to market is correct and perfectly or nearly perfectly knowable when that is not the case pretty much all the

You are arguing from the perspective that the mark to market is correct and perfectly or nearly perfectly knowable when that is not the case pretty much all the time. This bank was solvent according to the regulators until the day or a few days before it was taken over and yet could not find a buyer or raise capital. Why was that? It is because the accounting allowed to determine solvency allows hold to maturity and no marking to market on nearly perfectly knowable assets like MBS and this bank held a significant portion of its assets as loans to startups and warrants in same startups that are all basically valued on hopes and dreams and swing in value by a huge margin on market sentiment changes without necessarily changing the value they have to be marked at on the bank's books. I agree in the finance nerd sense there is a large difference, but for practical purposes for the average depositor there isn't really any difference.