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

Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 889 posts

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#271

Post by xboxnolifes »

phphphphp wrote: post #66
anon291 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'm overly skeptical, but everyone should know that all banks have the risk of 'if everyone takes their money out, the bank won't be able to make it work', right?

Sure, and everyone knows that their favourite person in the world could just run them over in a car and kill them in seconds, but if your best friend says to you, “you know, I could drive my car into you and you would die… your life could be snuffed out with a moments notice” you may start to question your friendship.

Sounds like a normal conversation with my friends.

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#272

Post by notyourday »

jfim wrote: post #130
notyourday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Per account. Per account "type" and structure. For DDAs if you are married it will be: You: $250k Your+your wife: $250k You POD your wife : $250k Your wife: $250k Your wife POD you: $250k

What's POD in this context?

What @htrp said - payable on death.

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#275

Post by jbverschoor »

recursive wrote: post #101
jbverschoor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Europe is's only 100k per account per holder. (Used to be 20K in NL)

Having 100k in a bank account seems to be well into 1%-er territory. I don't think that's going to do much for the alleged PR campaign conspiracy.

Let’s say you just got your 10m series A, and you you gave 1 week of runway left.

That’s not even enough to make an emergency landing

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#276

Post by hollerith »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #137
ncallaway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it’s pretty much always been problematic when a bank leader has had to make a statement akin to “We’re fine as long as there’s not a run”. That’s the kind of thing that only gets said when there’s some concern that there will be a run.

They’re selling equity to get capital. That’s pretty dire straits, FTX was doing that before they went under (I’m not saying this is FTX, I’m just saying it can be akin to the nuclear option)

For what reason besides raising cash does a company ever sell shares in itself?

How does your statement make any sense?

(I am assuming that by "capital" you mean cash.)

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#277

Post by throwaway1777 »

paxys wrote: post #72
ericpauley wrote: post #58

I'm really curious why banks like this are popular in the first place. I get why startups would want to lend from them, but what is the advantage of parking cash in a "startup-focused" bank? The rest of the business is exciting/risky enough, wouldn't you want your banking to be as boring as possible?

People care about convenience of locations, ATMs, online experience, customer service, savings rate, (lack of) fees, rewards. The bank's underlying risk profile is irrelevant for the vast majority of customers. If you have <$250K in your account the money is safe either way.

Svb has relatively few normal customers. It’s almost all startups and vcs

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#278

Post by gnicholas »

rippercushions wrote: post #15

From https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/09/silicon-valley-banks-share... : Becker said the bank has “ample liquidity” to support its clients “with one exception: If everybody is telling each other that SVB is in trouble, that will be a challenge.” Pro tip: if you're CEO of a bank that's facing a bank run, don't tell the press that you'll be in trouble if everybody takes their money out.

> Pro tip: if you're CEO of a bank that's facing a bank run, don't tell the press that you'll be in trouble if everybody takes their money out.

True, but isn't it possible that if he omitted this clarification, his statement about "ample liquidity" could be on shaky ground, from a legal perspective?

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#279

Post by hackernewds »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #21

Daily reminder that bank runs wouldn't be a thing if we did duration matching, forbidding banks from borrowing short and lending long. As always, the underlying problem in banking is that the banks are lying, telling two or more people they own the same dollar at the same point in time. If they locked deposits for a period of time they could safely (and morally) loan that money out without lying, and, in fact, there…

This is a feature, not a bug off the fractional banking system that is upheld by the federal reserve

Re: Bank run on Silicon Valley Bank

#280

Post by throwaway1777 »

krasin wrote: post #5
dgrin91 wrote: post #3

First silvergate, now SVB. Is this going to be a wave across the banks?

Today, Credit Suisse delayed its 2022 report after the last minute call from SEC: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/credit-suisse-to-delay-its-2... I don't know what to make of it.

Credit suisse has been on the rocks for a year
Post reply on HN