3 ms·

No, they liquidated those positions at a loss because of outflows. They are actually short the cash.

• heartbreak 4y ago
  They didn’t liquidate $200 billion in MBS and treasury bonds in a week let alone a day.
  • linuxftw 4y ago
    From [1]: > The bank initially sold more than $20 billion of bonds, but did so at a $1.8 billion loss. What we don't know is did they liquidate the positions that were more valuable in order to take a smaller loss, or positions that were most underwater? I'm guessing it's the former, which would mean they were in even worse shape with the unsold securities. 1: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/the-real-reason-silicon-valley-bank-collapsed/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/the-real-reason-silic...
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      They absolutely did the former. Those are the securities which were marketable reasonably quickly, and they were planning to sell equity, too (another expensive but liquid asset). Now that those assets are in the FDIC's hands, though, they can likely be unwound really slowly and without a ton of execution slippage, which would have otherwise happened if this were a firesale.
• zzleeper 4y ago
  At a loss is kinda bullshit b/c that loss happened a long time ago, not when the sale happened
  • navigate8310 4y ago
    They realized that loss in their books is what matters.