They were mark-to-market insolvent, and those marks look economically rational--they agree with a simple NPV calculation, and there was no indication that the m

They were mark-to-market insolvent, and those marks look economically rational--they agree with a simple NPV calculation, and there was no indication that the markets were disorderly. The marks were just lower than the SVB's management wished. For regulatory purposes, the SVB was permitted to ignore those losses in bonds that it intended to hold to maturity. Accounting doesn't change reality, though. If the SVB's assets are actually worth more than their liabilities to depositors in any economically meaningful sense, then why do you think the FDIC was unable to find a buyer?