The Failure of Silicon Valley Bank: A Test of Market Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unexpected collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) on March 10, 2023, sent shockwaves through the tech industry. SVB, a long-standing financial institution serving tech startups for nearly four decades, suddenly shifted from solvency to insolvency within 48 hours, marking the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history. This event provides an excellent opportunity to test the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), particularly its semi-strong form, which posits that rapid information absorption prevents significant stock price gains in response to new information. This research uses the standard event study methodology in the finance literature to investigate SVB’s collapse and its impact on the stock prices of 30 banks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The study aims to discern whether stock returns exhibited reactions prior to, on, or after the public announcement of SVB’s failure, thereby assessing market efficiency. Using historical stock and S&P 500 index data, the study analyzes holding period returns, performs regression analyses for pre-event periods, and calculates average excess returns. Results indicate statistically significant negative impacts on stock prices surrounding and on the event date. Furthermore, consistent with behavioral finance theory, a decline in adjusted stock prices approximately 7 days before the event suggests anticipatory market behavior, in line with semi-strong market efficiency. SVB’s case emphasizes the role of external factors, regulatory changes, and industry concentrations in shaping market responses. This research contributes empirical evidence to the discourse on market efficiency, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of market behaviors during crises. Lessons from SVB’s collapse will inform regulatory and risk management strategies, impacting future discussions on market efficiency. Likewise, the study results support the semi-strong form efficient market hypothesis and suggest the possibility of trading on this information up to 7 days prior to the announcement consistent with the behavioral finance literature (Bacon & Howell 2021). This study provides valuable insights into market dynamics during unprecedented events, influencing future discussions on regulation, risk management, and market efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".