Washington is admitting bank losses never really went away

Cryptocurrency

Washington is admitting bank losses never really went away – Crypto News

Published

2 days ago

April 4, 2026

Dripp

Make preferred on

Washington is in a generous mood with its banks. In March, federal regulators unveiled a sweeping overhaul of capital requirements (the financial cushions that banks must hold to absorb losses in hard times), and the headlines wrote themselves: deregulation, relief, billions freed up for lending and buybacks. The proposal would cut the required capital for the largest Wall Street firms by nearly 5%.

The Federal Reserve estimated that roughly $20 billion in capital could be released for the eight largest banks alone. Former Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr put the figure even higher, warning the total could reach $60 billion once all related changes were factored in.

Why this matters: Bank stability depends less on reported capital and more on what markets believe is actually there. If unrealized losses are still sitting on balance sheets, confidence can break faster than regulation can react, turning a technical accounting issue into a liquidity crisis.

White House crypto czar leaves office after securing crypto wins for banks and institutions instead of Bitcoin

David Sacks exits after shaping U.S. crypto policy, delivering institutional gains while Bitcoin promises remain unresolved.

Mar 27, 2026 · Liam ‘Akiba’ Wright

But something unexpected surfaces when you read the fine print. Regulators carved out one specific exception: certain large regional banks would have to begin accounting for unrealized losses on their books, a change directly tied to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. That provision, largely overlooked in coverage of the broader rollback, amounts to a regulatory admission.

To understand why, you need to understand what an “unrealized loss” actually is for banks. Imagine you buy a ten-year government bond for $100. Interest rates then rise sharply, new bonds now pay more, making yours less attractive as its market value drops to, say, $80.

Even though you sold nothing and lost no cash, this means that you’re now sitting on a $20 loss, unrealized and invisible to most financial scorecards.

For years, midsize banks were allowed to exclude those paper losses from the capital figures they reported to regulators, as though the gap between market value and book value didn’t exist.

How Silicon Valley Bank’s unrealized losses triggered a bank run in 2023

Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse resulted from something far more mundane than fraud or reckless lending: a portfolio of perfectly legal long-term bond investments that shed much of their value as interest rates climbed.

We began seeing the first signs of a crisis in early March 2023, when SVB announced a $1.8 billion loss on the sale of securities, a direct consequence of those unrealized losses, alongside a plan to raise $2 billion in fresh capital.

Shares fell 60% the following day as uninsured depositors began withdrawing their assets en masse; by that evening, $42 billion had left the bank, with another $100 billion staged for withdrawal by morning.

Contagion from SVB’s collapse highlights need for banking system resilience, says Fed official

Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision, Michael Barr, is set to testify before lawmakers on Tuesday.

Mar 27, 2023 · Dorian Batycka

Nearly 30% of its deposits evaporated in a matter of hours. SVB was killed by panic, and the panic was caused by the losses that had been there for quite a while, suddenly becoming visible.

The bank’s capital looked substantially more adequate than it was, given that almost none of its supervisors, depositors, or investors could gauge the true size of the unrealized securities losses.

Under the rules then in place, SVB had exercised a legal and widely available option, simply opting out of including those losses in its reported capital figures, a decision that turned out to be catastrophic.