I think Yogi is right here, though, that the KRE ETF did actually fall on Thursday and Friday.

It did. My point though was that it fell almost 5% prior to Thursday...a somewhat curious 3 day move for that index with no news...

Quick take : No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.
Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.
My TAKE : If you're dumb enough to put more than $250 K into one account , you need to have your hand slapped !!

So much for the $250,000 FDIC insurance. Everyone gets their money back.

Saw somewhere -
Interesting FDIC has 125billions. On the hook 25billions now .

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm
Notes to follow.
Signature Bank, NY also closed.
ALL depositors of Signature AND SVB Bank will be protected - insured & uninsured.
Stock and debt holders will not be protected.
New BTFP facility for 1-yr collateralized loans with $25 billion funding coming from Exchange Stabilization Fund.
Fed Discount Window access to be easier.

What I find odd is that KRE, the regional bank ETF simply didn't move lower on Thursday and Friday. They were leaking oil beginning Monday, down over 16% for the week. Someone knew what was happening before the press and the public became aware.

KRE fell -8.11% on Thursday, -4.39% on Friday.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=KRE&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p16451725406

Schwab ran into problems in ‘08 with their “Yield Plus” ultra-short. Apparently they led investors to believe it was a safe, suitable substitute for a money market fund. It was down less than 4% when this article published in ‘08. But ISTM the fund ended up losing a lot more before it was all over.
[snip]

"The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Charles Schwab Investment Management (CSIM) and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co.) with making misleading statements regarding the Schwab YieldPlus Fund and failing to establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information. The SEC also charged CSIM and Schwab Investments with deviating from the YieldPlus fund's concentration policy without obtaining the required shareholder approval."
"The SEC also filed a complaint in federal court against CSIM's former chief investment officer for fixed income Kimon Daifotis as well as Schwab official Randall Merk, who is an executive vice president at CS&Co. and was president of CSIM and a trustee of the YieldPlus and other Schwab funds. The SEC alleges that Daifotis and Merk committed fraud and other securities law violations in connection with the offer, sale and management of the YieldPlus Fund."
"The YieldPlus Fund is an ultra-short bond fund that, at its peak in 2007, had $13.5 billion in assets and more than 200,000 accounts, making it the largest ultra-short bond fund in the category. The fund suffered a significant decline during the credit crisis of 2007 and 2008. Its assets fell from $13.5 billion to $1.8 billion during an eight-month period due to redemptions and declining asset values."
Link

https://morningstar.com/articles/1143550/which-funds-are-taking-the-biggest-hit-on-silicon-valley-bank-and-other-bank-stocks
It's one thing for a fund in general to hold bank stocks. It's another for an active fund with a manager to bet big on SVB. Did these managers not look at the bank's capital/balance sheet and see that it was heavily invested in long-term bonds in a rising rate environment, while also facing tech sector depositor withdrawals? In this regard, Diamond Hill Mid Cap, usually a careful risk-conscious shop, deserves to be dinged. As do, BBH and Sound Shore and Franklin Mutual. From the article:

In [Diamond Hill Mid Cap's] shareholder commentary from the end of 2022, manager Chris Welch acknowledged the stock was facing difficulties. “Regional banks First Republic and SVB Financial were pressured amid a rising rate environment, which is weighing on net interest margins.”
Welch singled out the unique position of Silicon Valley Bank. “SVB Financial faced additional headwinds given its exposure to the innovation economy, its primary area of focus—though we believe such an environment offers the company an opportunity to add tremendous value for its clients and cement its leadership position in a lucrative space,” he wrote.

IT appears, as I posted elsewhere that SVB had not had a risk officer since Dec 2021. The last one resigned with all her stock. The CEO actively lobbied Fed to avoid being required to do a stress test. Exposed far far more than what is even "adventurous" to interest rate risk with all depositors from same industry therefore likely to all act at the same time.
Begging his friends and long time customers, like Peter Thiel to "Stand by us as we have stood by you" CEO found out the hard way how much customer relationships matter to people like Thiel and in general in Silicon Valley.
So assuming they sold everything they could to pay the depositors, the question is how big are the remaining accounts that have not been liquidated, and what they can get for the people, the relationships (?) etc
I read their loans were only about 30% of assets. These are still probably good. Assume they had almost all of the rest of the deposits in their now gone bonds, and they sold them at even 70% of face value, this would imply they got 50% of total assets in sale and handed that out to depositors and then became insolvent.
FDIC covered 9% I think so they still have 41% of pre crash depositors to make whole with the loans and whatever else they can dredge up

BBG: "Dick Bove at Odeon Capital Group LLC notes “that reduction in bank deposits and the sharp negative reaction in the financial markets to the SVB developments suggest a deeper discontent with the banking industry’s treatment of their clients and investors.”
I don't often listen to Bove, but I think he's on to something here -- when individuals see that they're being offered pissant amounts of interest on their money by the bank in an age where can get 4 or 5% from treasuries (and that fact is making frontpage news daily), is it any wonder folks are feeling 'discontented' and looking to move their money?

The primary clients of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) were technology startup firms.
These firms were strapped for cash and started withdrawing money from SVB.
To fund these redemptions, SVB sold a $21bn bond portfolio for a $1.8bn loss on Wednesday.
Silicon Valley Bank disclosed plans to sell $2.25bn in common equity
and convertible stock on Thursday to shore up its balance sheet.
This effort collapsed and the stock for the bank's parent (SIVB) lost 60% that day.
California's banking regulators shut down Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and put it into receivership
under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
SVB did a poor job of matching assets to potential liabilities.
It invested in longer-term bonds which suffered significant losses as the Federal Reserve raised rates.
Under accounting rules, these bonds were classified as "held-to-maturity" securities.
Although there were large losses, SVB didn't have to recognize them since the bonds were carried at cost.
Regulators may consider changing the classification for bank's bond portfolios
to "available for sale" which represents the market value.

A very non scientific measure is how the normally non reactive, stay the course Bogelheads are reacting. On a day when the markets are down big time no Bogelhead would think of posting anything about it. They know that they would be blasted by the “stay the course
“ group think. But since Thursday night at 11;40pm the “Silicon Valley Bank fails” thread now has 564 posts. I would say that the fear meter is redlined.

You are right. I had taken the link off my favorites bar but went back today with the same curiosity. The long thread I found had the OP being belittled for simply asking about money markets on behalf of his mother (or aunt, I don't remember which).

Quick glance:
Informative interview and Bill Hence laid out First Eagle strategy well.
He previously managed Royce Small Cap Opportunity fund before co-managing this First Eagle fund (1.5 year old) with 2 other managers.
FESAX is a NTF at Fidelity (most likely at Schwab).
ER is at 1.42%. A bit high and there are alternatives with lower ERs
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/32008F226

Wow! That’s big! Thanks @rforno.
I figured the Fed would be involved behind the scenes. Maybe even the possibility of an emergency meeting + some additional action. But it’s unlikely. Could spook markets more and also confirm publicly how irrational they’ve been.
Forsyth speculates in Barron’s that they’ll only hike 25 bp at their next meeting. 60% probability based on the futures markets. I’ll bet that probability has risen since he wrote. I’m thinking perhaps no hike at all. Then there’s the political heat that’s soon to reign down on them. Warren fired a salvo at Powell’s testimony last week.
It’s curious that Powell is an attorney by training - not an economist as most Fed chairs have been. :)

People saw that if HTM was market to market, SVB was operating with negative equity since September. All that needed was some trigger for the run, and some say that rumors of it going under spread like wildfire on Twitter this week. And it happened.
Worrisome thing is that this can happen to almost 2 dozen banks right now.

@yogibearbull, think that accounts for the financial sector that fell almost twice as much as the S&P500 this week. Value-oriented funds/ETFs having higher % exposure to financial sector are impacted more.

@LewisBraham
Why did you jump subjects? Local news never did longform journalism of the sort we're discussing, at least not small papers, even in their postwar heyday (to the 1990s or a bit before). Newsday maybe, if we call that 'local'.
Roger about their demise and vulture-capital evisceration, sometimes in that order. It's horrible. J-prof Dan Kennedy is an expert and historian in the field (also a successor to me at an alt-weekly looooong ago):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/10/opinion/local-news-startups-are-overcoming-evils-corporate-chain-ownership/
@linter, I don't know if you are involved in any way, but RS sure as hell has stepped up its investigative / political / digging game the last year or three. A real surprise.
Your work on your great-aunt makes me think you might be at least a little interested in my slightly similar initiative (filmable bio-novel is the goal) of this grandfather:
https://davidrmoran.wordpress.com/
+++
As I type, PK has just tweeted a smart succinct summary of SVB, 8 parts thus far, comparing it w Madoff affinity fraud in the crypto-bogo era:
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1634908696806592518

After 5 pm, CST for FINVIZ , and for Global Indices, as their markets open around the globe.

Oh, darn it and I gave Bill Ray Valentine Friday off. (context FINVIZ 12:25PM PDT, I think)

That's okay, and while Randolph is in the hospital, Mortimer is still around to turn the machines back on....

After 5 pm, CST for FINVIZ , and for Global Indices, as their markets open around the globe.

Oh, darn it and I gave Bill Ray Valentine Friday off. (context FINVIZ 12:25PM PDT, I think)

BITCOIN UP 5% AFTER NEWS OF FED BACKSTOP ON SVB DEPOSITS

Hmmm, I always thought what yogi said is true. the cnn link you show says:
Last updated Mar 10 at 4:59 PM ET