The $1 million deposit creates a $1 million cash asset and a $1 million account liability.
The value being in MBS now is a result of a separate transaction (well, a lot of them, probably) where (in aggregate) the bank takes a bunch of money from its cash assets and trades them for an (initially) equal value in MBS assets.
It becomes a problem when the MBS assets lose value, and the bank needs cash to cover withdrawals.
This is right, though I think we should be clear that the MBSs lost value because they are normally like bonds, and bond prices decrease when yields increase.
MBSs tend to remind people of '08 when MBSs lost value because too many had a bunch of garbage loans which defaulted, causing MBSs' face values to decrease. In this case, the fact that they were MBSs is mostly a coincidence. If SVB had invested in Treasuries, they'd be in the same world of hurt that they're in today.
> If SVB had invested in Treasuries, they'd be in the same world of hurt that they're in today.
Not necessarily, if they were investing/laddering in short term Treasury Bills (< 52 weeks) instead of longer dated bonds things might have panned out differently.
”97% of these MBS were 10+ year duration, with a weighted average yield of 1.56%.”
Treasury Bills from 6 months ago had yields of 3.37%.
The value being in MBS now is a result of a separate transaction (well, a lot of them, probably) where (in aggregate) the bank takes a bunch of money from its cash assets and trades them for an (initially) equal value in MBS assets.
It becomes a problem when the MBS assets lose value, and the bank needs cash to cover withdrawals.