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

SVB Hall of Shame

svbhallofshame.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#261

Post by dev_tty01 »

leereeves wrote: post #250
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get that joke. Please, elaborate.

I'm pretty sure they mean that if the VCs hadn't advised companies to withdraw all at once, the crisis might never have happened, and March 11th might simply have been a nice day for a walk.

When the Moody's data became known it was going to happen one way or another. Well over 90% of the accounts were uninsured. Someone was going to pull money. Perfect unanimity in inaction was simply not possible. Given that scenario, it is a rational response to try and be first out the door.

The fault here is with SVB management making some very bad decisions and with VCs not looking at the publicly available data and moving away from SVB a lot sooner. Of course, hindsight is alway's 20/20. Once the Moody's trigger had happened the choices were simple.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#262

Post by throw123123123 »

gmd63 wrote: post #218
throw123123123 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you on this website. Honestly. This is literally a website by the people you are criticizing, for the people you are criticizing.

I thought this website was for hackers, not dudes who beg for bailouts from the government and turn around and spend them on bitcoin

You would be wrong. This is the social media channel of a VC, specifically one that was impacted and lobbied for depositor safety on this very topic.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#263

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

leereeves wrote: post #250
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get that joke. Please, elaborate.

I'm pretty sure they mean that if the VCs hadn't advised companies to withdraw all at once, the crisis might never have happened, and March 11th might simply have been a nice day for a walk.

i got that, but how does this relate to a bald eagle?

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#264

Post by slenk »

naet wrote: post #61

I don't think I agree with this as a mark of "shame". Were these companies wrong to pull money out of SVB when they (correctly) thought the bank might be insolvent or headed for trouble? Are we celebrating those who left their money in, despite the warnings, when they could have potentially lost it all if the government didn't step in and make an unprecedented promise to honor the deposits? Would that have been "hero…

Well if everyone didn't just follow everyone else blindly, there wouldn't have been a run

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#265

Post by colpabar »

2-718-281-828 wrote: post #263
leereeves wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure they mean that if the VCs hadn't advised companies to withdraw all at once, the crisis might never have happened, and March 11th might simply have been a nice day for a walk.

i got that, but how does this relate to a bald eagle?

I don't think there's any symbolism there, the point is just that they did something that wasn't withdrawing 42 billion dollars.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#266

Post by HDThoreaun »

slenk wrote: post #264
naet wrote: post #61

I don't think I agree with this as a mark of "shame". Were these companies wrong to pull money out of SVB when they (correctly) thought the bank might be insolvent or headed for trouble? Are we celebrating those who left their money in, despite the warnings, when they could have potentially lost it all if the government didn't step in and make an unprecedented promise to honor the deposits? Would that have been "hero…

Well if everyone didn't just follow everyone else blindly, there wouldn't have been a run

How is pulling money out of an insolvent bank "blindly following?" Everyone could see their deposits were decreasing for over a year and they didn't have the cash to continue to support it, there's nothing blind about following the incentives and making a good decision.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#267

Post by eric_cc »

naet wrote: post #61

I don't think I agree with this as a mark of "shame". Were these companies wrong to pull money out of SVB when they (correctly) thought the bank might be insolvent or headed for trouble? Are we celebrating those who left their money in, despite the warnings, when they could have potentially lost it all if the government didn't step in and make an unprecedented promise to honor the deposits? Would that have been "hero…

Agree completely with your point. Moving their funds from the train wreck was smart.

Shaming those that withdrew their funds reminds me of meme stock culture where participants shame sellers and make holding “no matter what” the highest virtue. The suckers that listen to that bullshit are the bag holding losers.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#268

Post by slenk »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #266
slenk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if everyone didn't just follow everyone else blindly, there wouldn't have been a run

How is pulling money out of an insolvent bank "blindly following?" Everyone could see their deposits were decreasing for over a year and they didn't have the cash to continue to support it, there's nothing blind about following the incentives and making a good decision.

Weren't they technically ok before the run as long as there wasn't a run?

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#269

Post by HDThoreaun »

slenk wrote: post #268
HDThoreaun wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is pulling money out of an insolvent bank "blindly following?" Everyone could see their deposits were decreasing for over a year and they didn't have the cash to continue to support it, there's nothing blind about following the incentives and making a good decision.

Weren't they technically ok before the run as long as there wasn't a run?

If deposits kept increasing they might've been ok, but startups had been withdrawing the cash they had raised during the pandemic, deposits were decreasing rapidly before the solvency issues were thought about. At that point there is a very real scenario where the bank runs out of money and depositors are screwed.

Re: SVB Hall of Shame

#270

Post by slenk »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #269
slenk wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't they technically ok before the run as long as there wasn't a run?

If deposits kept increasing they might've been ok, but startups had been withdrawing the cash they had raised during the pandemic, deposits were decreasing rapidly before the solvency issues were thought about. At that point there is a very real scenario where the bank runs out of money and depositors are screwed.

I feel like if it were slower though, then the bank would have been fine.

Granted, I can't talk about the board or their investing decisions because I don't feel educated enough to speak on that part.

Post reply on HN