It's always worth digging into the depths of a company's accounts. Here, from the September 2022 filing, is the solution to the mystery of #Silvergate's repayment of FHLB advances. FHLB advances in December 2022 totalled $4.3bn, far above Silvergate's maximum borrowing capacity. 
Why did FHLB demand repayment of the entire borrowing, not just the overlimit amount? Couple of possible reasons. By Dec 2022, the value of Silvergate's asset base had reduced significantly due to fire sales and asset reclassification. And also, this is a covenant breach.
btw the FHLB appears to impose mammoth haircuts on collateral. Silvergate's reported FHLB borrowing as at 30 September 2022 was $700m.
What I want to know is, who at FHLB approved Silvergate drawing $3.6m in less than three months against insufficient collateral, and why?
Though presumably Silvergate did stump up additional collateral. The maximum borrowing of $2.3bn ($700m outstanding + $1.6bn unused capacity) in the September filing is against pre-positioned collateral of $2.7bn.
The December accounts also suggest total FHLB borrowing was around 29% of total assets, which is well under the 35% maximum. But the December accounts are going to be restated. So did Silvergate actually breach the 35% limit?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
