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

Urgent: Sign the petition now

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 864 posts

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#361

Post by dseravalli »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #314
pixl97 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the 250-500k limits have been around for a long time now, that said they are rather low due to inflation. Most larger companies reduce this risk by spreading assets over a number of banks. Just banking with a large bank does nothing if they fail.

You don’t even need to use multiple banks. Each individual amount is insured to $250k. So if you have monthly payroll due of $1M, then open four checking accounts (all at the same bank), and don’t keep more than $250k in each.

It's per bank, not per account

> Deposits are insured up to at least $250,000 per depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category.

https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/faq/index.h...

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#362

Post by z3c0 »

nightmarish wrote: post #313
garry wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up food insecure.

[flagged]

TBH I don't support the idea of any bailouts, but the idea that someone of your temperament is "making sure people like you don’t get to crash the economy again" doesn't make me feel any less worried.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#363

Post by TuringNYC »

afavour wrote: post #57

[deleted]

> Was there something particularly incredible about SVB that led so many businesses to use it, and use it solely?

Not sure why startups used it solely, but I can see why startups used SVB. One great reason is that they provided lines of credit to startups and "got it", understanding the typical business setup and risks of a startup and was able to underwrite the LoC.

I used Chase bank for my startup and they would have chased me out with a pitchfork if I even inquired about a Line of Credit, even if it was a pull-forward of predicable SaaS revenue.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#364

Post by Ekaros »

briHass wrote: post #223
garry wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equity holders and management of SVB are likely to be wiped. In the petition we specifically call this out: we are not asking for their risks to be "socialized." Depositors have a reasonable expectation that when they choose a bank (especially a publicly traded bank that is regulated) that their deposits are safe. If this is not true, then most people will only bank with the largest banks. That's not a good situa…

Just to clarify, these depositors specifically exceeded the FDIC deposit insurance limit (250K), right? That isn't a new or unknown rule; either through ignorance or calculated risk, those depositors that exceeded the limit took a chance. I don't disagree that something should be done in the future to prevent this, but when you gamble, sometime you lose.

Chose to exceed that and also not diversify at the same time. In my mind they have only themselves to blame. They could have gotten one or two more accounts if they are legitimate businesses.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#365

Post by pixl97 »

skwirl wrote: post #123
slondr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying if I deposit more than $250k (which is NOT a lot for a business) into a reputable and regulated US bank at negligible rates of interest I should just accept the impact of the bank shutting down due to events unrelated to my actions and choices? Yes, because that is how risk works. > And that my deposit should vanish into thin air? No, you should insulate yourself from that risk, either by spreading o…

>No, you should insulate yourself from that risk, either by spreading out your cash between multiple institutions, or obtaining deposit insurance beyond the government's, or (most likely) both. Why would I do that when I can bank with a too-big-to-fail bank like JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America?

Because you're assuming just as much risk that one of these banks won't lock the entirety of your account for {reasons} while you fight it out with them.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#367

Post by Laaas »

geodel wrote: post #94
UmYeahNo wrote: post #15

When we little guys put our eggs in one basket, or put excessive reliance in business we have no control of we get accused, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, of being incompetent. That we should've known better. Hmmm.... The cynic in me says this letter is less about bailing out the small companies trying to make payroll and more about the VC's not wanting to lose massive investments.

Even if there are small companies I don't think they are in some honest business of producing useful physical goods and charging fair money for that. Most likely they are half-assed scammy SAAS crap. Absolutely not sure why these world beaters hacking everything under Sun need to be bailed out by some stodgy old institution anyway.

Why are SaaSs scammy?

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#368

Post by pdq »

dahdum wrote: post #43

Despite the attempt it’s going to be called a bailout by the public and press even if the FDIC turns a profit down the road.

How is the FDIC going to turn a profit?

Every company who has deposits there are going to wire it out once reopens. You can't make money if you have no deposits.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#369

Post by lapcat »

softwaredoug wrote: post #344
lapcat wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is aware of the Great Depression. This ain't it.

I don’t think it is either. It’s just an important reminder the end state of letting banks fail.

The FDIC isn't letting the bank fail. Quite the opposite. The FDIC stepped in and stopped the bank from failing. Otherwise, the bank's deposits would have been completely wiped out the other day.

Re: Urgent: Sign the petition now

#370

Post by nwienert »

version_five wrote: post #332
nwienert wrote: post #38

For posterity, the chefs kiss title of this submission as of now is: “YC Is Asking for a Bailout”

I posted it, I'm aware of the rules about titles, but honestly I thought my title was way more clear about what the story was. In retrospect I should have called it "Tell HN: YC is asking for a bailout", think that would have been fair. The fact that it's been edited here is not cool with me, especially as the story is unfavorable to YC (though I certainly believe readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusion…

I think it was maybe the fastest rising post I’ve ever seen.

That was solely because of the title.

Post reply on HN