> They were never, even MTM, under water. This is completely false. If the SVB (or any other bank) had been adequately capitalized on a MTM basis, then they co

> They were never, even MTM, under water. This is completely false. If the SVB (or any other bank) had been adequately capitalized on a MTM basis, then they could have borrowed from the Fed to withstand any bank run. The SVB was not: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balance-sheet-time-bomb-at-svb-was-sitting-in-plain-sight https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/the-balan... The hold-to-maturity accounting allowed them to pretend otherwise, disregarding losses on long-term bonds when interest rates increased. They--and their regulators, since such accounting is perfectly legal--hoped this would let them ignore the problem until they could earn their way out of the hole. Instead interest rates increased further, the hole got deeper, and the SVB blew up. It's not impossible that Thiel somehow benefitted from the collapse, though I'm not aware of any evidence for that yet. It's also possible that he simply didn't want his money in an insolvent bank.