Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Urgent: Sign the petition now

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 864 posts

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#171

Post by novalis78 »

nickpeterson wrote: post #44
jarym wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying if I deposit more than $250k (which is NOT a lot for a business) into a reputable and regulated US bank at negligible rates of interest I should just accept the impact of the bank shutting down due to events unrelated to my actions and choices? And that my deposit should vanish into thin air?

I guess why didn’t you spread it around to multiple banks?

…which is what many crypto companies have had to do for a very long time… bank redundancy is crucial in an environment where innovation has stalled, regulations stifle and monopolies abound.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#172

Post by fdsfsad »

FDIC resolution transactions division is doing it's job. They aren't fucking around.

Monday - $250k unfrozen

Wednesday or Thursday a huge amount of funds will be unfrozen from proceeds from FDIC big selloff of SVB assets yesterday.

Balance should be available in 2-3 months but will require a process.

This isn't going to be the big catastrophic event YC are pushing.

Although I do understand the fear.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#173

Post by eastbound »

sourcecodeplz wrote: post #31

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?

Should developers really be paid $300k a year? Why is it so high compared to a career manager in a bank who will cap out at $120k, after wrecking his health with cocaine to sustain the incredible pace for 25 years?

This crisis may make deflation happen, if developer salaries deflate.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#174

Post by nightmarish »

garry wrote: post #144
axlee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

110% agree. At some point, risk HAS to be treated as what it is, risk, rather than just "another way to do things". We have so many banks treating risk as what it is, and pricing for it, well these people decided to go to another bank to get funding, well deal with it. It's not like the average citizen has this luxury.

The equity holders and management of SVB are likely to be wiped. In the petition we specifically call this out: we are not asking for their risks to be "socialized." Depositors have a reasonable expectation that when they choose a bank (especially a publicly traded bank that is regulated) that their deposits are safe. If this is not true, then most people will only bank with the largest banks. That's not a good situa…

[flagged]

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#175

Post by kelnos »

garry wrote: post #90
nocoiner wrote: post #8

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.

> Most startups only have one bank.

There's the problem: startups are doing an inadequate job of managing the risk around their treasury operations. That sucks, but that's on them.

I as a taxpayer do not care to bail out -- yes, that is what that is -- these startups, when they could have done a better job at risk management. I know some smaller startups that do have their cash at multiple banks (SVB one of them). While this is still a headache for them to deal with, it's not an existential threat. Perhaps more startups should be like that.

If you take a risk, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of what might happen.

> 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.

False. Companies live or die because of every business-related decision they make. Choosing a particular bank, and choosing not to diversify where they keep their cash, is one of those decisions.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#176

Post by corbulo »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #72
dougmwne wrote: post #14

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…

Not a giant incumbent?? They were literally on the board of the SF Fed...

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#177

Post by andrepd »

prepend wrote: post #133

What would I gain as a taxpayer in return for this bailout? Would the taxpayer receive 10% equity in YC? It seems like YC could have insured these funds, but didn’t. They saved money and accepted the risk. This risk is now realized. Seems bizarre that YC would be made whole. Certainly it saves jobs, but it benefits YC more than anyone else.

> Would the taxpayer receive 10% equity in YC?

Make that 30–50 and we'd have a deal. Fucked up and want the state to rescue you? Fine, but your business is now mine, future profits and dividends (evabled by the bailout) will be distributed to all Americans, not just the handful of owners of "your" business.

It's how the 2008 bailouts should have been handled, instead we got the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#178

Post by fallingknife »

nocoiner wrote: post #8

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.

I have an idea. The startup depositors are made whole in exchange for the FDIC receiving shares in the company that dilute the VCs in an amount depending on company valuation and balance lost. This way you bail out the small business and make the VCs pay.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#179

Post by Ekaros »

runnerup wrote: post #74

Private bridge loans seems like the answer here. Private bank, private risk. Long term maybe just establish a “federal deposit bank” with no private profits but guaranteed unlimited FDIC protection.

Could we use CBDC for this? If the central bank has the money, there is no need to loan it out and the operational fees could be covered by tax payers. Then those who want their money lend for profit could use banks.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#180

Post by CyanBird »

garry wrote: post #90
nocoiner wrote: post #8

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.

> not because they made an arbitrary choice.

It is not an arbitrary choice, svb was known for their risk taking behavior which is why so many risky small businesses landed on their lap

Rather than taking standard loans designed to reduce systemic risk, startups chose to use this bank because it allowed them to access capital more rapidly or in exchange for their own pennystocks, which ofc leads to increasing systemic risk and leads to the situation today

Sow winds and reap whirlwind

Post reply on HN