151–160 of 864 posts
Where was YC when SVB lobbied against stronger regulation so they could take more risk? Crickets. Edit: Sources in my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35114110
Source for SVB lobbying against banking regulations?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11847295/amp/CEO-co...
I googled that for you.
If this bank failure touches off something similar to what happened in 2000 for the online economy the results will be colamatious. The average person doesn't realize how much bigger the Valley is in the entire American economy than it was back then.
FWIW I have no money in Silicon Valley Bank.
LOL, nope. Not interested in taking another spin on the “privatize gain, socialize loss” merry-go-round. The banks had to be saved in 2008 because they were, like, the financial system. I don’t see why private companies and funds that are much less integral to the functioning of the economy as a whole should be saved by the public fisc. Sorry about your disruption.
These are depositors of a bank. Most startups only have one bank. Startups should live or die because they create good products and solve real problems in real markets, not because they made an arbitrary choice like which bank they started using. There's also a real risk of bank contagion if it is only safe to deposit in the largest banks.
Where's the sense of responsibility here? YC told their funded companies to use Silicon Valley Bank. It's YC's responsibility to find a market for SVB's assets. It's YC's responsibility to create a secondary market for SVB's receivership certificates.
Where was YC when SVB lobbied against stronger regulation so they could take more risk? Crickets. Edit: Sources in my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35114110
We are advocating better regulation to prevent this from happening in the future. It's in the petition.
Details matter — let's wait to see what y'all actually advocate when it comes down to writing actual regulations.
I honestly can’t think of a sector less deserving of a bail out.
Why is that? This is small and medium sized venture-backed startups, a sector that’s taken a tiny fraction of US investment but represented a major portion of its GDP growth. They did nothing wrong and were failed by their bank. Why are small tech startups building something new less deserving than say, giant banks that knowingly took extreme risks in 2008, or giant auto businesses that refused to modernize and truly…
The "Help us because jobs" line is just mendacious.
LOL, nope. Not interested in taking another spin on the “privatize gain, socialize loss” merry-go-round. The banks had to be saved in 2008 because they were, like, the financial system. I don’t see why private companies and funds that are much less integral to the functioning of the economy as a whole should be saved by the public fisc. Sorry about your disruption.
People who invested in SVB should be wiped out, probably.
People who deposited in SVB should not be wiped out.
Depositors in banks aren't expected to do due diligence on the financial statements of the bank they're depositing in. Have you read the 10-K filings of your bank in detail?
Might seem like an ahole but can't you guys making 100k+ per year ride it out? We are talking about startup a here, have we forgotten the risks and implications that come with this model?
LOL, nope. Not interested in taking another spin on the “privatize gain, socialize loss” merry-go-round. The banks had to be saved in 2008 because they were, like, the financial system. I don’t see why private companies and funds that are much less integral to the functioning of the economy as a whole should be saved by the public fisc. Sorry about your disruption.
According to Brookings, “Annually, venture investment makes up only 0.2% of GDP, but delivers an astonishing 21% of U.S. GDP in the form of VC-backed business revenues.”
https://www.brookings.edu/research/as-the-venture-capital-ga...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are depositors of a bank. Most startups only have one bank. Startups should live or die because they create good products and solve real problems in real markets, not because they made an arbitrary choice like which bank they started using. There's also a real risk of bank contagion if it is only safe to deposit in the largest banks.
There was nothing arbitrary about that choice. This bank promised better deals BECAUSE they were not careful enough about the risk it entailed. That was their competitive advantage, and they made bank for it. Well, tough luck, now it's not anymore: it has nothing to do with being a large bank or a small bank, it has to do with healthy business practices.
No one was chasing any yield. No one was taking any risks. It's a bank account.
Are you suggesting tens of thousands of small business customers need to do due dilligence on the investment practices of their banks?
And what about all the other regional banks? Based on your comment, do you think the prudent thing would be for every single small business in America to transfer their funds out of regional banks into a large bank?