There is that economic adage attributed to Keynes: In the long run we're all dead.
If you need money but your current assets in whatever form can't furnish that fund for you, I am afraid you're broke.
If you need money but your current assets in whatever form can't furnish that fund for you, I am afraid you're broke.
Obviously the latter is not as good as just having money. But it's clearly better than the former.
Therein lies the difference between solvency and liquidity problems.
Whether you have assets that *you* believe you could draw on in the future doesn't matter when your need is immediate.
You say basic fact. I say oversimplification.
We can argue about the semantics of the word "broke", but the difference here is between losing all your money vs. having to take out a loan now that you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to repay when your bonds mature and only losing the interest payments on that loan.