Does the US and SVB have bail-in laws? There is a huge difference between a preferred creditor and being at the back of the line. As SVB has a rather low percentage of FDIC insured coverage at ~5.69% compared to a more normal 40-60% they can't rely on FDIC to get the more typical 90c on the dollar. But then again SVB might have been healthier than other banks so maybe the dilution won't be so bad. Historically depositors were first in line but bail-in laws (depending on how they're written) has the depositors balances converted to equity which is last in line. Such laws are totally crazy but didn't have an impact because few people knew about them so depositors were taking big risks and not knowing about it there by not demanding the interest rates needed to cover such risk. In effect it decreased the risk to the prefered debtors, preference shares, bonds, etc lowering the interest cost to the bank. Basically by transferring risk to those who don't know better the bank makes free money. The idea is sold as a win-win for taxpayers and bank health but only works as long as depositors stay ignorant. If SVB is bailed-in with conversion to equity then knowledge about that risk will spread quickly and the follow on effects could be very substantial. I think that can't be allowed to happen, which is probably why even with such laws depositors tend to be a bit blase. But if that does happen then holy shit look out.
Replying since I can't edit: FDIC is issuing a Receivership Certificate which I am assuming has first cut priority so it does not appear to be a bail-in. Debtors and equity will get hosed, as it should be, hopefully they can avoid a bail-out as well.
Edit: I just noticed that it says that in the link of the thread. I'm tired and I didn't read it carefully, my mistake.
