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

311–320 of 864 posts

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#311

Post by rockemsockem »

andrepd wrote: post #141
UmYeahNo wrote: post #15

When we little guys put our eggs in one basket, or put excessive reliance in business we have no control of we get accused, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, of being incompetent. That we should've known better. Hmmm.... The cynic in me says this letter is less about bailing out the small companies trying to make payroll and more about the VC's not wanting to lose massive investments.

Couldn't agree more. Average Joe is swindled by con-men into bad deals and/or is subject to events outside his control: should have known better/worked more Huge company in the business of risk management fucks up: bad luck, the taxpayer will cover you, no civil or criminal responsibility will come to anyone regardless of the magnitude of the fallout

I don't think startups can be honestly called huge businesses. If you're referring to SVB, then yeah no bailout for them, but the petition isn't calling for that.

Isn't it possible to think that both small businesses/startups and average joes deserve to be bailed out when shit goes sideways?

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#312

Post by theGnuMe »

drcode wrote: post #231
axlee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this is a fact lots of people don't want to accept To be fair though, in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank account at a registered bank, the government would back those funds It's stupid to have set that expectation, but it seems very destructive to suddenly remove that expectation

Your funds are insured up to $250k. That's the expectation and reality. Every account has the disclaimer that amounts in excess of $250k are not insured.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#314

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

pixl97 wrote: post #189
garry wrote: post #144

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…

I mean the 250-500k limits have been around for a long time now, that said they are rather low due to inflation. Most larger companies reduce this risk by spreading assets over a number of banks. Just banking with a large bank does nothing if they fail.

You don’t even need to use multiple banks. Each individual amount is insured to $250k. So if you have monthly payroll due of $1M, then open four checking accounts (all at the same bank), and don’t keep more than $250k in each.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#315

Post by garry »

jimrandomh wrote: post #37

Statement by the FDIC: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23016.html Key paragraph: > "All insured depositors will have full access to their insured deposits no later than Monday morning, March 13, 2023. The FDIC will pay uninsured depositors an advance dividend within the next week. Uninsured depositors will receive a receivership certificate for the remaining amount of their uninsured funds. As the FDI…

$250,000 will be available initially, which is doable for payroll of up to 15 to 25 people for one month, generally if you're a startup.

FDIC website indicates remediation time in the months-to-years. This is the concern.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#316

Post by Supermancho »

drcode wrote: post #231
axlee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this is a fact lots of people don't want to accept To be fair though, in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank account at a registered bank, the government would back those funds It's stupid to have set that expectation, but it seems very destructive to suddenly remove that expectation

> in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank account at a registered bank, the government would back those funds

Not since around 2010. The ~2007 crash was not without consequence.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#318

Post by morelisp »

pixl97 wrote: post #189
garry wrote: post #144

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…

I mean the 250-500k limits have been around for a long time now, that said they are rather low due to inflation. Most larger companies reduce this risk by spreading assets over a number of banks. Just banking with a large bank does nothing if they fail.

Not that long, it was raised from $100k to $250k in 2008. They were up for review last in 2020, and again in 2025.

Most people - people - have far, far less than this. And it's fundamentally about protecting people - institutions, like we're discussing here, are supposed to be considerably more risk-aware.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#319

Post by goodluckchuck »

jlmorton wrote: post #160
axlee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're confused, but these are simple bank accounts. There was no high interest yield. The average interest yield was a fraction of a percent. 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 b…

I’m saying banks should not be able to lend without tracing and specific consent from the individuals whose money is being loaned out.

When a bank promises to keep your money, then converts it for their own use and purchases investments and lends it to others… that’s fraud.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#320

Post by newaccount2023 »

garry wrote: post #101
wnevets wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government interference in the economy is bad* *Unless it's to bail me out.

FWIW I've never had that perspective, so I'm not sure why you are saying that.

Then you should also have no problem pledging 33% of all gains on top of regular taxation to the Federal Government as payment for the bailout

Those single moms living paycheck to paycheck, who you want to fund your bailout, would become part owners of YC

Post reply on HN