Live data from Hacker News

Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

ft.com

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps they shouldn't keep money in the bank in the first place, but find other uses for them. If this is the position you want to take, that's fine, but you need to own the consequences of that position. The point of the FDIC is that you don't have to worry about the credit-worthiness of your bank before deciding to do business with them. If that's not true anymore, then I'm pulling every dollar out of my local b…

There's something the airline industry does where they don't compete on safety. They're all safe. You don't want banks to start competing on safety; they should all be safe.

No normal bank is safe without government backing.

Banks are inherently vulnerable to bank runs, because they work with money across different time intervals. For example, a hypothetical small town bank might turn checking and savings accounts into mortgages. If everyone decides to withdraw their savings all at once, the bank can't call all the mortgages due. So if everyone panics all at once, banks will fail. So we try to regulate the risks taken by banks, and we provide government-backed insurance. To be honest, the last-ditch "insurance" behind most banks is sovereign power.

It has been a long time since companies have lost money in bank failures. Everyone has gotten complacent.

The failure of SVB means that a great many people are suddenly seeing new risks. Come Monday, I expect to see lots of companies moving funds. And lots of banks hold government bonds that have fallen substantially in value because of the rapid changes in interest rates.

I will be very happy if we get out of this with few bank failures.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#922

As others have said, if depositors are bailed out, it's a bailout. Pretending that changing the definition makes a difference is childish. Whatever the government decides to do, this makes the VC and startup industry look really weak and entitled, and knocks them down from risk takers building the future to the same status as a bunch of bankers looking for a handout. There was an opportunity here for VCs with lots of…

Dispensing with all the hand-wavy, moral grandstanding about being "unbecoming", "mature", showing "independence", being "weak and entitled" etc etc... None of this is even remotely relevant, you'd be equally reasonable to tell us you wish startups were comprised of more handsome and charming individuals or that they should attend church more frequently.

In terms of discussing risk, startups should minimize all risks possible because their core risk is to find a business model and product that works. Putting cash into a bank account isn't a "strategy" nor is it an investment. Much like choosing to incorporate in Delaware, it's something you do because it's standard and adds no unnecessary risk to the business. It's not smart to try to get fancy with boilerplate company things–you have enough risk already.

Anyway, at the core of your argument seems to be two beliefs: 1. VCs had the capability to stop this from happening with private means (no) 2. People who start companies or work at them just generally deserve bad things to happen to them, regardless of how proximal or not the causes are of their misfortune.

I am biased because I've sacrificed years of my life and probably the vast majority of my potential earnings to try to build a good business. It's been the hardest thing I've ever done, no one's impressed by it, it's not yielded any financial benefits, it's harmed my personal and social life, and by all likelihood I'll never see any significant success. But I keep trying because I like our customers and my coworkers and I care more about the possibility of building something great than I do all the rest.

It's hurtful to chalk up the (potential) death of companies like mine to being "weak and entitled". Of all the risks to account for in building a business, having our bank accounts disappear overnight didn't even crack the top 100 of risk factors. Things like losing customers, failing to grow revenue, keeping employees happy, etc. are at the top; below that are changes to the market, competition, and the death of co-founders or myself. It's not possible to account for every conceivable risk.

Anyway, it looks like we'll get some help here so it's not over for us yet. On behalf of companies everywhere, I'd like to apologize that you've been deprived the opportunity to dance on our graves.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty baffled to see so much of this on HN. Like a whole lot of people here, I've worked at startups for my whole career. People here are effectively suggesting that I shouldn't get my paycheck and that the company I work for should lose most of its money because our CEO used a well-reputed bank? Absolutely wipe out the equityholders of SVB. They deserve nothing, because that's what you should end up with if you…

I think the backlash against tech comes from many years of tech celebrating themselves and being celebrated as “disrupters” for a lot of bullshit startups. And the amounts of money made with companies hat have no real business is just astonishing. It would be nice if it went back to focusing on creating sustainable businesses that make useful products that benefit their users and aren’t just another vehicle for mass…

There's another layer to this: many of these bullshit startups are in crypto, which spent the past 5+ years undermining trust in centralized banking and the Fed. Now this world is crying out for a bailout. It's just so rich. Like why would I want to support a16z's businesses in a time like this?

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty baffled to see so much of this on HN. Like a whole lot of people here, I've worked at startups for my whole career. People here are effectively suggesting that I shouldn't get my paycheck and that the company I work for should lose most of its money because our CEO used a well-reputed bank? Absolutely wipe out the equityholders of SVB. They deserve nothing, because that's what you should end up with if you…

I think the backlash against tech comes from many years of tech celebrating themselves and being celebrated as “disrupters” for a lot of bullshit startups. And the amounts of money made with companies hat have no real business is just astonishing. It would be nice if it went back to focusing on creating sustainable businesses that make useful products that benefit their users and aren’t just another vehicle for mass…

also, a lot of them pooh-poohing the need for regulations because it interferes with their risky startup work.

It turns out, you can experience the downside of risk.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#925

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…

I'm pretty baffled to see so much of this on HN. Like a whole lot of people here, I've worked at startups for my whole career. People here are effectively suggesting that I shouldn't get my paycheck and that the company I work for should lose most of its money because our CEO used a well-reputed bank? Absolutely wipe out the equityholders of SVB. They deserve nothing, because that's what you should end up with if you…

It’s more subtle, because these startups exist due to VC investment. Those VCs probably recommended and even set up their portfolio startups with SVB accounts. And a high percentage of these companies were heading to failure due to the nature of these ventures. I’m not so sure taxpayers should be responsible here.

Why don’t VCs double down and make their investees whole? They’re the ones who bankroll and believe in these ideas, and stand to make 1000x profits in their successful exits.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is it wasn't pension money. It was VC money... You're going to shit yourself when you learn who some of the LPs are.

What is an LP?

"Limited partner", someone who invests in a partnership without having day-to-day management control (IIRC). In the case of VCs, many of the limited partners are pension funds or other giant players who want to invest a small fraction of their assets in higher-risk, higher return securities. (The LPs probably have other assets invested in lower-risk, lower-return assets.)

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#927
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ooc why is unlimited deposit insurance a bad idea? A quick Google search didn't have many results, except some brief articles about section 343 of Dodd Frank (which itself seemed limited in scope).

You're in spirit asking for a state bank, not modified private banks. Thats the only way you would get the 'result' you're looking for. Many private banks with unlimited deposit insurance would simply play more fast and loose with your money because there's basically no risk. Why wouldn't you choose the bank that offers more % return on your money? You're totally insured. The state insuring all deposits would effecti…

> Many private banks with unlimited deposit insurance would simply play more fast and loose with your money because there's basically no risk. Why wouldn't you choose the bank that offers more % return on your money? You're totally insured.

You overstate the case for moral hazard here. Most of the risk to the bank remains, even if the FDIC covers larger deposits than the normal limit of $250,000. 100% of a bank's capital remains at risk - that is the bank can lose everything it owns and its backers have invested in it, even if its depositors are protected.

And, if what I have been able to read about it is correct, SVB wasn't really playing fast and loose with depositors' money. Any bank can be destroyed by a drastic enough bank run, because a banks assets - it's loans to customers and investments it makes with deposits, are never completely liquid. SVB's situation was worse than that, since its non-loan investments (in the form of purchased bonds) were under water, but by all account, it wasn't by a lot.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#928
post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of startups fit that bill and will nonetheless be impacted by SVB’s failure, while the most pointless businesses surf by on their founders’ access to inherited wealth and political power. Any revenge on them will be short-lived and will have serious, lasting consequences for middle class workers throughout the industry. For anyone reading this who doesn’t already know: startups aren’t all snotty trust fund kid…

No, but the median salary for a software engineer is still 120k, a little under double the median salary across all industries. It's hard to dredge up deep, deep wells of sympathy for folks who were already playing the salary game at double the value of half the players. One can't escape the sense that if they've done the kind of budgeting that a regular American does, they will be fine.

> It's hard to dredge up deep, deep wells of sympathy

This, by the way, is why ordinary Americans are suffering while the billionaires are winning and laughing at us. They have us fighting with each other for scraps. $120k/yr after taxes doesn't go very far at all for a family of four. Kids eat a lot of food! Sure, it goes roughly twice as far as $60k/yr does, and, saved wisely and not spent on yachts, cocaine, and girls, provides a bit more of a financial cushion in case of a calamity like the one we're in, but SVB's CEO made $4.8 million last year, which, budgeted by a regular American, is enough for several lifetimes. A software dev making $120k/yr, he is not.

Have however much sympathy you can muster for software developers who, yes, have more than you do, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the backlash against tech comes from many years of tech celebrating themselves and being celebrated as “disrupters” for a lot of bullshit startups. And the amounts of money made with companies hat have no real business is just astonishing. It would be nice if it went back to focusing on creating sustainable businesses that make useful products that benefit their users and aren’t just another vehicle for mass…

I think it has to do with Nietzschean slave morality and a media angered by losing advertising revenue to strong competitors. The media is literally competitor in the attention economy, of course they will attack their biggest foes.

You're begging for money from the government to compensate you for your own personal failures. I think you need to re-read your Nietzsche if you think this makes the people saying no to that corrupted by ressentiment.

They're just trying to help you overcome your shackles of dependence on the sweet teat of Uncle Sam. Get some bootstraps and climb out of this hole on your own merit!

Re: Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

#930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your company is the equity holder. You loosing last months paycheck is no different than what happens in the rest of the country any time an employer declares insolvency. Also, I don't think people in SV appreciate how much rancor and resentment their behavior has generated in the last fifteen years.

I dont understand the hate against SV/ tech bros. What did they ever do to anyone else? Is it purely jealousy, or do people feel harmed?

Aside from weaponizing the internet to help DC censor people it deemed icky? Taibbi testified in Congress just this week about it.

Or, if in a touristy area, flooding their residential neighborhood with unregulated AirBnBs?

If bicycle/motorcycle rider, putting "self/driving" cars they knew cant detect two wheeled vehicles?

Adding a police detector to continue providing illegal taxi service in cities?

Having a business model where our personal information is syphoned off and commoditized?

Creating social media creating new, widespread, psychological diseases?

Creating the infrastructure for mass surveillance through by selling access to their product through government partnerships?

This is HN... all these stories well documented here.

Post reply on HN