Live data from Hacker News

The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

stratechery.com

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#31
post #2

>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…

>But that's not how it works! I would imagine the people advocating for a 'bailout' (using the most generous possible definition here) want this to become how it works. Like how in Germany the government guarantees every German bank balance. I have enough problems, I don't want to have to worry that my bank balance will disappear unless I spread it around in order to abuse a technicality.

> Like how in Germany the government guarantees every German bank balance.

Up to 100.000€, they don't guarantee it without limit, and they don't guarantee it for anything that isn't insured.

Greensill's insolvency recently got lots of media attention since local governments deposited large sums and were not (fully) covered by the normal mechanisms that protect private and business customers.

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#33

I have this innovative idea for business. Imagine you charge money from depositors for keeping their money in a big safe vault. No trading or lending their money. You just keep it safe.

It's called "narrow banking" or full-reserve banking.

It's been tried, and was rejected by the very same regulators who now had to bail out SVB: https://www.econlib.org/why-does-the-fed-oppose-narrow-banki...

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#34
post #2

>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…

Limits were not "ignored", the companies simply have no other choice. The problem is systematic and by design. A medium sized startup/business handling only 25 million would need to bank with 100 different banks, obviously that's inconceivable in practice. And now look at some of the more prominent customers. Pinterest, Shopify, CrowdStrike Holdings, Beyond Meat, Andreessen Horowitz, Founder's Fund, Circle. The latte…

There are better monetary instruments (like short term Treasury Bonds) to keep money at scale. Most startups don't have a team (CFOs etc) but I am sure the larger ones don't keep cash like that.

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#35

> There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Because if the bank doesn't give any interest, people will keep the money in either a competing bank that gives interest or in cash or in other ins…

The only "interest" I've gotten from a bank in probably decades is a free checking account which money can be deposited into and withdrawn from (via paper check or a couple different online payment mechanisms), the very rare notary service, and ATMs (also increasingly rare). I regularly sweep any significant excess cash to a brokerage account. I understand companies keeping larger pure cash accounts but how many individuals are keeping $500K in a bank deposit account?

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#36

I have this innovative idea for business. Imagine you charge money from depositors for keeping their money in a big safe vault. No trading or lending their money. You just keep it safe.

That's just a waste of capital and leads to zero business investments. It's exactly what happens in crypto because it's deflationary, and it's the main reason there is no crypto economy beyond the price speculation.

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#37
post #2

>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…

[deleted]

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#38

>Banks are, at their core, facilitators: depositors lend their money to a bank, for which they are paid interest, and banks lend that money out, again for interest. That's not why I have a bank account. It's how you avoid paying fees to get checks cashed. If you want interest, you put it in a savings account, or a CD, also in a bank. The only safe alternative is savings bonds. If you want to gamble the money, then yo…

CDs are more valuable to banks because they prevent you from making a bank run by requiring you to keep your money deposited for a set amount of time. They're still investing that money. They also invest the money in savings accounts.

Putting your money in a bank is essentially the same as investing it, but with a few more safeguards that you're exchanging for losing out on profit.

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#39
post #3

This is still a better situation than 2008, where banks were bailed out to the extent that management even stayed (despite deserving prison), and shareholders lost nothing. So that's the worst possible outcome, today's is probably second worst. But I don't see what would be better. Ben talks about loss of trust now, but we'd actually lose more trust if depositors weren't bailed out, and probably contagion would sprea…

"Deserve prison"? Did they commit a crime?

In 2008? I think it was fraud yes. What would you call packaging mortgages you know are worthless in pretty wrapping to be able to sell them to the next bagholder?

That it temporarily works and it's how everyone does business isn't an excuse.

Re: The End of Silicon Valley (Bank)

#40
post #2

>The federal government’s action is, in my estimation, the right thing to do for this moment in time. There will, though, be long-term consequences for fundamentally changing the nature of a bank: remember, depositors are a bank’s creditors, who are compensated for lending money to the bank; if there is no risk in lending that money, why should depositors make anything? Banks, meanwhile, are now motivated to pursue e…

Limits were not "ignored", the companies simply have no other choice. The problem is systematic and by design. A medium sized startup/business handling only 25 million would need to bank with 100 different banks, obviously that's inconceivable in practice. And now look at some of the more prominent customers. Pinterest, Shopify, CrowdStrike Holdings, Beyond Meat, Andreessen Horowitz, Founder's Fund, Circle. The latte…

What would it take to formally increase this limit to USD 250 million for everyone?
Post reply on HN