You're absolutely right. It's entirely possible for SVB to sell their assets and cover the entirety of the deposits above FDIC limits.
Get real. The issue has never been that SVB's assets were completely worthless, it's that they're not going to cover all of the deposits over the FDIC limits. Ten year bonds were a bad idea and nobody wants them given the current interest rate trajectory. If SVB's assets could've been sold for their full cost they would've been. An assessment will happen, it's just a question of how large it will be.
It's possible the bank is only a "little bit" insolvent. Is it not possible that the difference can be made up by wiping out shareholders and giving unsecured bondholders a haircut?
> Is it not possible that the difference can be made up by wiping out shareholders
In the US it's illegal to do anything that would be "bad" for shareholders. It's quite literally the law that CEOs must return a profit for shareholders (or attempt to). The FDIC however has no such requirements, so while the bank itself can't wipe out shareholders, the FDIC can do it without care.
Publicly traded companies will ALWAYS put shareholders above anyone else. It's the primary reason I'm very much against banks being publicly held. Just as I feel it's immoral for healthcare both insurance, pharma, and hospitals to be publicly traded entities.
> SVB's assets could've been sold for their full cost they would've been
Why? No one thinks the FDIC is gonna close their bank until the FDIC padlocks your front door with you inside. This literally surprised almost everyone.
Get real. The issue has never been that SVB's assets were completely worthless, it's that they're not going to cover all of the deposits over the FDIC limits. Ten year bonds were a bad idea and nobody wants them given the current interest rate trajectory. If SVB's assets could've been sold for their full cost they would've been. An assessment will happen, it's just a question of how large it will be.