211–220 of 864 posts
It’s boring stuff, but good governance includes things like risk management policies, and treasury policies. Too late the lesson is re-learned - spread your banking risk, especially if holding large amounts of cash. Meanwhile it’s not too late to think about how to lower client, counterparty and supply risk through diversification, including into other locations and countries.
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?
SVB lobbied to not be regulated as strongly as other banks, and won. You would be perfectly fine at most other banks. This was a choice. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/11/silicon-val... Edit: https://www.levernews.com/svb-chief-pressed-lawmakers-to-wea... > Eight years before the second-largest bank failure in American history occurred this week, the bank’s president personally pressed Congress to redu…
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.
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?
Yes. That's the way this works. Or you can choose whatever risk mitigation strategy you're comfortable with: spread your deposits across multiple institutions, buy Krugerrands and bury them in the backyard, purchase 3rd party insurance whatever.
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.
Why should a company, perhaps a slower and more risk-averse company who intentionally chose a different, safer banking institution to do business with, do they not get to benefit from their discretion in choosing that banking partner? One could argue that choice put them at a disadvantage against their fast-moving competitors, who chose fast-moving “corporate infrastructure” like SVB.
If bailouts like this take place, how do those companies ever benefit from being prudent? Should nobody bother?
(FWIW, this is just a thought exercise, I am not opposed to the petition.)
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.
If the choice was "arbitrary" then you'd expect startup banking to be distributed arbitrarily among the various banking choices in the market. Clearly that's not the case.
No, this was "the startup bank". It was the startup bank because it operated in tandem with the startup funding ecosystem (an entity of which the startups themselves are really just a small part). That's not an efficient market. That's more or less a cartel.
The VC world, YC included, is a toxic mess at this point. I don't see why a bailout is a bad idea, but... yeah, the startup ecosystem needs a reboot. Bail out the startups if we must, but nothing for the dealmakers.
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.
Startups have been anything but “socialized losses”. They’ve literally been the growth engine of the country for the past twenty years. 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...
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
An industry so ideologically against government intervention in the free market should stick to their guns, even if the barrel is in their own mouth.
Live by absolute freedom, die by absolute freedom.
I'd be open to bailing them out if they allowed the US government to take significant equity positions.