Now there will be another hearing in March during which the judge will consider all of the evidence (even that which wasn't allowed in the original trial) to determine what his punishment should be.
The judge will have to abide by the federal sentencing guidelines which specify the punishments and severity they can apply but otherwise it's a matter of their discretion.
The judge will probably adhere to the sentencing guidelines (and will almost certainly use them as a starting point if not), but the guidelines are, like the Pirate Code, "more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules". The Supreme Court has ruled that the judges are constitutionally empowered to depart in either direction from the guidelines sentences within the statutory minimum and maximum for the offenses on which the offender is convicted.
Way too many people here have read Popehat's (very important!) piece about how reporting of aggregate statutory maximum penalties is usually extremely misleading because in the vast majority of cases the guidelines ranges (1) will be applied, and (2) will be much shorter than the aggregate statutory maximum and are hypercorrecting into "SBF's actual sentence will be far below the aggregate statutory maximum because sentencing guidelines", without any idea of how the guidelines would apply to the facts at issue in the case.
There’s no discounts here.
What seems more likely to me is that life will end up excluded by a statutory maximum, and the judge will exceed the guideline dollar figure based on the degree to which SBF’s crimes exceed the guideline scale.