811–820 of 1001 posts
Yikes. Does anyone have an idea of which orgs have significant exposure (like Molly White's FTX contagion graph[0])? [0] https://www.mollywhite.net/etc/ftx-contagion
Potential contagion: https://imgur.com/a/Xh6Kudp These are companies, sorted by PPP loan size who had SVB as their servicer.
In the previous thread, someone posted a video showing the process of the FDIC seizing the Heritage Community Bank in Chicago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIh6NEBL8BU It's pretty interesting.
We bank with SVB and our funds are now frozen. This is going to be an incredibly painful weekend of waiting for news. For anyone else impacted, wishing you the best - stay strong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first glance, bank balance sheets are unintuitive and feel 'the wrong way round'. When someone deposits $1m at a bank, the bank doesn't have $1m more assets, it has $1m more liabilities. (Yes, this is a gross over-simplification)
Not an expert, but was having some thoughts. Let debt be a graph where the nodes are people (with ledgers) and the edges are all of the form "alice rents $x from bob for y% APR". Actions that resolve/relax graph are payments of the form "alice pays bob $z", that lead to all balances being 0. Let the edges decay to null when balance is 0, such that a 'resolved graph' is simply a list of nodes with no edges, meaning 'n…
Now “They want to (add, prevent from decay) as many edges as possible” becomes “They want to encourage different parties to lend each other things they want”.
Does this mean $SIVB stock holders who had $265 shares two days ago now have worthless shares? JFC no wonder bank stocks are priced so low compared to earnings... You're just hoping the dividends pay out enough before the inevitable implosion.
They will be getting something but probably close to pennies on the dollar. Depends on how it gets repackaged and sold.
We bank with SVB and our funds are now frozen. This is going to be an incredibly painful weekend of waiting for news. For anyone else impacted, wishing you the best - stay strong.
If you don't have more that 250k cash in there you should be good.
2008 bear sterns vibes. The fed's move in interests rates was bound to break something. This is the first big name and, while banks are taken over by the FDIC often and it never makes the news, this one will be especially interesting bc it is Silicon Valley Bank. Naturally, people and the media will associate with the rest of silicon valley, bringing extra scrutiny to every brand name tech company, especially the one…
It’s not interesting because of its name, it’s the 18th largest bank in the US. A domino that big usually doesn’t fall alone. Also, FDIC hasn’t taken over a bank since 2020. This isn’t exactly a common occurrence.
> Some banking experts on Friday pointed out that a bank as large as Silicon Valley Bank might have managed its interest rate risks better had parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory package, put in place after the 2008 crisis, not been rolled back under President Trump.
> In 2018, Mr. Trump signed a bill that lessened regulatory scrutiny for many regional banks. Silicon Valley Bank’s chief executive, Greg Becker, was a strong supporter of the change, which removed the requirement that banks with assets under $250 billion submit to stress testing by the Fed, and changed requirements for the amount of cash they had to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shocks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/business/silicon-valley-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"to generate the yield they wanted to see on this capital." Sticking to unrealistic goals seems to to be the downfall of a lot of financial institutions (and probably a lot of other companies). Same happened with Deutsche Bank in the 2000s. The CEO declared that they wanted to achieve higher ROI and to achieve this they had to start doing ever riskier stuff until it blew up in their faces (and the taxpayer generously…
Exactly that. I am wondering why the “pressure” to generate more yield or any yield at all. It is counterintuitive to me to view the startups deposits as investments and not as saved money to be used later, hence no need for a risky or any yield (even if part of the savings will be washed by inflation year over year)
An explainer post [1] connected to that Tweet is something I found extremely informative (assuming it's accurate): "- In 2021 SVB saw a mass influx in deposits, which jumped from $61.76bn at the end of 2019 to $189.20bn at the end of 2021. - As deposits grew, SVB could not grow their loan book fast enough to generate the yield they wanted to see on this capital. As a result, they purchased a large amount (over $80bn!…
Affecting stripe payouts too: https://support.stripe.com/questions/important-information-a...