Silicon Valley Bank: How Rising Rates Helped Trigger a 2023 Bank Run
Silicon Valley Bank failed on March 10, 2023, after a sudden loss of confidence and severe deposit withdrawals. The story demonstrates how assets that are generally considered high credit quality can still create large losses and liquidity problems when interest rates rise and a bank’s funding is unusually concentrated.
The business model before the failure
Silicon Valley Bank served many technology companies, venture-backed businesses and associated customers. During an earlier period of abundant deposits, the bank grew rapidly and invested a substantial portion of funds in securities with longer maturity and fixed yields.
The Federal Reserve’s April 2023 review describes a highly concentrated business model and reliance on uninsured deposits. The vulnerability was not one investment in isolation but an interaction between asset duration, funding structure and insufficient risk management.
Why bond prices fall when rates rise
For a conventional fixed-rate bond, rising market interest rates generally reduce the price investors are willing to pay for an older bond with a lower coupon. The effect is typically more pronounced for bonds with longer durations.
The credit quality of a government bond does not eliminate its interest-rate risk. A holder able to wait for specified cash flows is in a different liquidity position from a financial institution that urgently needs to raise cash by selling securities at current market prices.
A deliberately simplified balance-sheet example
Imagine a bank bought bonds for ₹100 crore when their coupons looked competitive. Later, new market yields are much higher and a hypothetical sale price is only ₹85 crore. The bank may expect the contractual cash flows over time, but selling now produces a ₹15 crore realized loss relative to purchase cost, ignoring accrued interest, amortization and accounting classifications.
Banks report securities under different accounting categories and regulatory capital rules. The example is not a reconstruction of SVB’s precise portfolio. It isolates the price mechanism behind duration risk.
Funding risk made the problem urgent
SVB’s customers included large account balances beyond standard deposit-insurance coverage. Its deposit base was also relatively interconnected. After the bank announced losses on securities sales and plans to raise capital, confidence deteriorated quickly and withdrawal requests accelerated.
The FDIC and Federal Reserve describe how a run left the bank unable to meet demands, leading to its closure by California authorities on March 10. The event shows that a bank can run out of immediately available liquidity even when it holds assets that may generate future cash.
Regulatory and management failures
The Federal Reserve’s official postmortem identified failures in the bank’s risk management and shortcomings in supervisory responses, alongside regulatory and supervisory factors. It explicitly cautioned against treating the failure as merely an unforeseen shock.
This multi-factor explanation matters. Saying ‘interest rates killed the bank’ oversimplifies how concentrated uninsured deposits, risk oversight, asset-liability decisions and depositor behavior interacted.
How bank runs spread
If customers fear that others will withdraw first, each may have an incentive to request funds immediately. Rapid communications can accelerate this dynamic, especially in a connected customer community. A liquidity concern can become self-reinforcing when withdrawal demands exceed assets readily converted into cash.
This is not identical to a solvency finding. Whether a bank can eventually repay its obligations and whether it has cash today are different assessments, although market losses can connect them.
Why depositor protection mattered
US authorities took extraordinary steps to manage the failure and maintain depositor access, described in FDIC announcements. Those actions should not be confused with a permanent rule that every large deposit in every jurisdiction will always be protected.
For everyday readers, deposit-insurance scope and institutional concentration should be checked under the rules of the specific country and product rather than inferred from one extraordinary US event.
The lasting financial lesson
Maturity mismatch is common in financial intermediation: institutions fund longer-dated assets partly with deposits or short-term obligations. This creates value but demands careful liquidity buffers, duration management, diversified funding and credible supervision.
The 2023 episode connects back to an old financial reality: the expected future value of an asset is not the same as having money available to meet an obligation right now.
What duration means intuitively
Duration summarizes sensitivity of a fixed-income instrument’s price to changes in market yields, under defined assumptions. It is related to—but not identical with—years until maturity. A longer-duration bond usually has greater price sensitivity to a given yield change than a shorter-duration bond.
The calculation depends on coupon, maturity, yield and other contractual features. It is therefore inaccurate to claim every bond with the same nominal maturity must respond identically to a rate change.
The difference between loss recognition and liquidity
A bank that owns a bond may classify it under accounting rules that determine how market value changes appear in its financial statements. Such classifications do not make the economic market value irrelevant when assets must actually be sold to generate liquidity.
A security can be expected to pay contractual cash flows over time while being costly to liquidate now. If many depositors demand funds at once, market prices and funding access become immediate operational constraints.
Why concentrated funding creates fragility
A bank with customers from a closely connected industry can see many depositors respond to the same economic shock or news. If most balances are large and uninsured, the incentives to move money rapidly can be different from those of a broad base of smaller insured depositors.
The Federal Reserve’s postmortem highlights both concentration and uninsured funding. This is not a generalized warning about technology companies or an assertion that every concentrated bank must fail.
Interest-rate risk has two sides
Higher rates can increase returns on newly issued securities and some adjustable-rate loans, while reducing the market values of older fixed-rate assets. On the funding side, depositors may demand higher rates or shift funds elsewhere, changing the bank’s cost of liabilities.
Financial institutions manage this asset-liability mismatch with liquidity planning, duration limits, stress tests and capital. Weakness in any one of these can become more dangerous when rates and depositor behavior change together.
A precise historical timeline
The bank announced losses on securities sales and a capital-raising plan in early March 2023. Withdrawal requests surged, regulators acted and California authorities closed the bank on March 10. The Federal Reserve released its supervisory review on April 28, 2023.
These dates matter because they distinguish management decisions made before the run, customer behavior during the crisis, subsequent regulatory actions and the postmortem. Compressing them into one vague sequence can suggest a false chain of causation.
Sources and evidence
This research distinguishes historic records from interpretation and labels numerical examples as hypothetical. Rules, products and institutional contexts differ across eras.
Aadvik Agastya is the author and editor of Capilore’s financial storytelling library. His writing explores everyday money choices, business and corporate finance, financial systems, and the historical decisions…
Meet the author & explore all stories ↗