Live data from Hacker News

SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

twitter.com

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#41
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. This is a commonly used scare tactic. Tan's proposed bailout is nothing like TARP

What is the difference between the two?

With TARP the government owned assets. For every dollar they invested, they could receive less, equal, or more than a dollar. Overall, they received more.

Tan is proposing the backstop deposits. In this case, the govt can receive AT MOST a dollar for every one of its dollars. The absolute best case is a break-even on the investment (and the government eating the cost of administering the program)

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you take a big chunk of credit creation and issuance out of service, the economy is likely to regress fairly significantly. Similarly, ceasing steroid use will reduce muscle mass.

Imagine trying to buy a house without a loan. Or start a business without cash up front. We can move to a world without credit, but standard of living for people will drop significantly. Look at what happened when they tightened lending standards into a recession in the 1930s. The key is to find the right balance in regulations to make the system robust

[deleted]

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#43
post #30
post #29

SVB is not getting a bailout. It is dead. Its share price is $0 and all shareholders are walking away with nothing. The government's decision on whether to bail out its depositors or not isn't going to be (and shouldn't be) based on how well the bank was run, especially given that it was fully compliant with all regulations.

Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.

If 'knowing the risks' means banks cannot be trusted then the economy as a whole will be devastated. Banking is a pillar - alternatively we can go back to the 1930s and store money under mattresses.

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxpayers should pay the bill, it might incentivize them to get off their ass for once like they did in 2008? I would rather pay off student loans

What happened in 2008? I was very young then so I don’t know.

The US plunged into the worst recession since The Great Depression of the 1930s when Lehman Brothers bank collapsed, which quickly cascaded around the world.

2008 is aka 'The Great Recession'; it likely would have been much worse without govt intervention, though the targets of the help were corporations, not the average person affected by it.

The 2008 crash was the culmination of a house of cards largely enabled by deregulation that wiped out huge mainstays in America, including the auto industry. GM and Chrysler are only with us today because of massive govt bailouts. Many banks large and small failed and were absorbed into larger ones (eg Washington Mutual). The govt bailed out other banks deemed 'too big to fail' (eg Chase).

Countries were also failing over this (eg Greece, which used the euro hence was not a sovereign currency issuer and had to rely on Germany et al to assist). Severe govt spending cuts were imposed around the world, leaving the average citizen bearing the brunt of the downturn.

None of the criminal bankers that caused this crash were held criminally or civilly accountable, sparking the Occupy protests. In fact, they still got their big bonuses that taxpayers paid for. Meanwhile, average people lost their homes, businesses, and jobs.

It took about a decade to return to pre-crash economic levels. Not counting 9/11 (the effects of which changed the trajectory of modern life), this was the first 'once in a lifetime' shock for Millennials that set us back many years … just in time for a global pandemic.

There are some movies about the 2008 crash. Maybe checkout 'Margin Call'.

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#45
post #30
post #29

SVB is not getting a bailout. It is dead. Its share price is $0 and all shareholders are walking away with nothing. The government's decision on whether to bail out its depositors or not isn't going to be (and shouldn't be) based on how well the bank was run, especially given that it was fully compliant with all regulations.

Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.

You're technically right, but people treat it as de-facto zero risk.

You also need to look at second-order effects. If startups go out of business because of this, that's a drain on unemployment funds. Those are income taxes not getting paid. Then there are downstream job losses on top of it. It could set back the sector for years, giving other countries sudden advantage in tech. In addition, some LPs are pension funds, so taxpayers would have to make up pension shortfalls. Then there's the risk of contagion now that everyone will be looking at their bank closely. You really don't want to take that chance.

Companies need to get some money very quickly, and you really want them to get at least 95 cents on the dollar back within a month.

It's one thing to let tech suffer because of its own hubris, but because of a run on a traditional bank?

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#46
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.

You're technically right, but people treat it as de-facto zero risk. You also need to look at second-order effects. If startups go out of business because of this, that's a drain on unemployment funds. Those are income taxes not getting paid. Then there are downstream job losses on top of it. It could set back the sector for years, giving other countries sudden advantage in tech. In addition, some LPs are pension fun…

> but people treat it as de-facto zero risk.

FDIC guarantees deposits up to 250k and everyone should know this. I know grandmothers with better risk mitigation strategies than these startups.

Your second paragraph is pure scare tactic. Companies that fail at the basics of managing their own money against simple obvious risks should face the result of their careless. They will be replaced by better-run companies.

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#47
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.

If 'knowing the risks' means banks cannot be trusted then the economy as a whole will be devastated. Banking is a pillar - alternatively we can go back to the 1930s and store money under mattresses.

Odd assumption to make

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#48
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If banks are rescued from this, the only logical conclusion is that all banks should just cease to exist. Why should they get to play with what is effectively taxpayer's money, since that is where the risk will be paid from if they lose? How it usually works is, when a bank fails and is "rescued", the shareholders (owners) who "get to play" with the money get nothing. The ones who are "rescued" are usually some/mos…

But isn’t resetting the shareholders to zero exactly the problem? If we’re keeping score, the shareholders should owe the government exactly how much money was used to make the debt holders whole, right?

We're not keeping negative scores, that's the whole point of the invention of limited liability corporations. It's has large upsides (democratization of capitalism, ability to participate in larger and riskier ventures). Like most powerful tools, it can be abused, but it's such a powerful force multiplier that giving it up is just too costly.

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#49
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're technically right, but people treat it as de-facto zero risk. You also need to look at second-order effects. If startups go out of business because of this, that's a drain on unemployment funds. Those are income taxes not getting paid. Then there are downstream job losses on top of it. It could set back the sector for years, giving other countries sudden advantage in tech. In addition, some LPs are pension fun…

> but people treat it as de-facto zero risk. FDIC guarantees deposits up to 250k and everyone should know this. I know grandmothers with better risk mitigation strategies than these startups. Your second paragraph is pure scare tactic. Companies that fail at the basics of managing their own money against simple obvious risks should face the result of their careless. They will be replaced by better-run companies.

> Your second paragraph is pure scare tactic.

This isn't the time to be a purist. What happened happened; now you have to look hard at possible outcomes and be pragmatic about the best response.

Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all

#50
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn’t resetting the shareholders to zero exactly the problem? If we’re keeping score, the shareholders should owe the government exactly how much money was used to make the debt holders whole, right?

We're not keeping negative scores, that's the whole point of the invention of limited liability corporations. It's has large upsides (democratization of capitalism, ability to participate in larger and riskier ventures). Like most powerful tools, it can be abused, but it's such a powerful force multiplier that giving it up is just too costly.

No need to give it up. Just narrow its application to banks. Or even just certain bank transactions.

If elements in the finance industry keep acting irresponsibly - clearly true - why should they get a pass on personal consequences?

Post reply on HN