Treasury Secretary Yellen was quite clear in an interview a few hours ago: "The problems of the tech sector aren't at the heart of the problems of this bank." https://youtu.be/vSZcPvp7NVU?t=292
Appears that leadership at the highest levels seems to be clearly aware that the problem at SVB had to do with bond prices/rates (rather than anything startup/tech/Silicon Valley specific), and that other banks may have the situation and be vulnerable to "contagion".
If SVB depositors aren’t made whole. We will see a bank run come Monday. And there will be contagion as most banks likely also bought bonds/treasuries with reduced face value from the fast rate hikes.
Under your mattress. Protected by an armed guard. Split up among various banks. In treasury bonds. In the financial markets. In Bitcoin. Wherever you want.
It's not the taxpayer's burden to insure >250k worth of your cash in one location.
The big, big banks (Chase, BofA) are too big to fail and are also subject to more thorough stress tests. That's one option. You could also deposit in multiple banks to stay below 250k. There are institutions that automate that.
Another option is to deal directly with the federal government and buy bonds from them (likely through a bank but your money doesn't have to stay there for long). Then only the most catastrophic scenario would see you losing money. You are still subject to inflation and interest rate risk.
But honestly at that point, worry about having guns and knowing how to use them, not where your money is.
One last edit to add that Treasury is making all depositors whole. So, really, all of this is moot... besides the guns :)
Depositing cash at a bank is not a different matter. You are giving another organization your money. Everyone knows that the government, FDIC, only insures up to $250k. That organization is then lending it out to make enough profits to employ thousands of people to give you, the depositor, all the services you've come to expect. Only charlatans are dumping $5m into a single bank with the thought, "no worries, if anything goes wrong the government will pay me my $5m."
All of the interest SVB depositors were rewarded with was coming from MBS. Heads, I get extra interest, tails, government bails my deposit out.
This is referring specifically to deposits not equity or corporate bond holders, management, etc. The depositors are not making a sizable returns, they’re just wanting to keep their money in a bank account.
Why should it matter whether it's deposits or equity or bonds? The instrument is irrelevant to the logic - if I have to back it on the downside then I want a piece of the upside too.
Businesses aren't making upside by putting their working capital in a bank checking account. Mine was making like 0.1%, it's negligible. I would be happy to socialize that upside for higher limits on deposit protection.
Equity and bond holders are a totally different group of people, they are investors in that bank. They are explicitly taking risk on the bank as an investment, not as a basic piece of their financial plumbing.
The problem is that continuing to bail out depositors means that they'll never do due diligence on their banks and therefore bank executives will keep trying risky strategies that increase their bonuses.
what kind of due diligence are you imagining that I, a depositor with under 250k should / am doing on a bank? What do you believe, I, as a single depositor of 250k CAN DO to audit a bank or otherwise make sure it's safe for my deposit?
Oh, when I say "bail out" I mean bail out of depositors with more than $250k of deposits, less than $250k already being well-understood to be covered. You, as a single depositor of $250k are fine. If you have $1m then you spread it out amongst 4 banks and are fine. If you have more then you'd better use your own nous or hire a financial advisor.
thanks for clarifying... that nuance wasn't clear. I literally thought you were going on the true libertarian bent of I as some dude with $100 needs to be responsible for all parts of the system.
Others have mentioned here, although I am not sure if or to what extent this is true, that depositors may have had an exclusivity relationship with SVB in order to secure loans or other financial services, which might account for depositors maintaining more the $250k in their accounts. If this is the case, then the risks of their banking relationship was manifest, and I feel there is an argument for taking no special action to reimburse depositors in the full amount. If not, then I agree with you. There is a level of due diligence that is simply unrealistic for individual depositors to perform.
The only DD you as a depositor with less than 250k USD in deposits needs to do is check that it is FDIC insured. When you sign up for the account it will be prominent and I doubt there are many accounts that aren't. So, basically you don't need to do anything special.
Or start running ponzi schemes. Why not offer high rates to depositors even pay them out and join in with some of your own companies. And then when it inevitably comes crashing down have the tax payer bail it all out.
Why does it matter? These depositors trusted someone they shouldn't have with their money knowing fully well that the government only insures 250k worth of it. Any other consumer or company in this situation wouldn't be made whole by taxpayers. Why is this cohort special?
* Customers (both individuals and companies) get to generally continue to view banking as a high confidence, high trust activity. Consider the existing cost and friction of KYC and other due diligence measures which are imposed asymmetrically. Reduction to a low-trust environment would seem to double up the friction.
* SBV bought a shit load of longer-term US debt (which is apparently what did them in). Based on current fiscal habits, the US government needs to keep this debt attractive, especially to domestic buyers. There's nothing it can do about the risk of interest rates changing, but the last thing it wants is for depositors to put pressure on banks to avoid long-term US debt.
It doesn’t follow that there will be any losses to cover. The government can take ownership of the assets of the bank and won’t be stuck having to sell them at a loss.
If you mark to market the assets are less than liabilities. It’s unlikely government will keep to maturity a bunch of 30 year mortgages. At the same time, we should just make FDIC limit infinite and make depositors whole.
I mean sure, but when it transacts it will be marked to market, it won't be just valued at the original hold to maturity so fed will take a loss. Also, fed is trying to shrink its balance sheet, presumably.
I don’t believe the fed typically marks its assets to market, though I’d be open to a correction on that point. Typically they just roll off the balance sheet by letting assets mature and not re purchasing.
They are indeed trying to shrink their balance sheet, but at the volumes they are working at, the entirety of SVBs assets amount to a few months of the fed’s current volumes.
It doesn't matter whether the bonds are sold now or held to maturity; the loss is exactly the same either way. For a simple example, let's say interest rates are independent of time to maturity and initially 2%, and we purchase a bond that pays $1000 in ten years. That will cost us 1000/(1.02^10) = $820.
After two years, that bond now has FMV of 1000/(1.02^8) = $853. But then interest rates increase to 4%, so its FMV drops to 1000/(1.04^8) = $731.
If we sold today at the FMV then we'd realize an $89 loss from our purchase price. That's neither better nor worse than holding to maturity, though--that's what makes it the FMV. In the case where we sell, we'd get $731 now, but we could reinvest it at 4%. After the remaining eight years, that would give us 731*(1.04^8) = $1000, exactly the same as if we'd held.
HTM accounting treats the two cases as different, but that's an arbitrary regulatory decision, untethered from any economic reality. It has no meaning outside that narrow compliance purpose. The SVB's decision to treat that accounting fiction as if it were economically meaningful appears to be a major part of how they blew themselves up.
There is a legitimate issue beyond “but Capitalism” here.
Banks that may be otherwise solvent may become insolvent because of a domino risk of bank runs.
Probably the right thing to do is forced equity dilution of a bank experiencing a run. That is, the Fed buys senior equity in the bank and the injection pays for short term losses.
The equity injection guarantee alone would likely be enough to stop the contagion and calm markets.
So 15 years after 2008 and TARP, our solution is to reach for the most extreme tools available to us yet again?
I thought "TARP" / equity injections into banks was a "never again" kinda deal. With Dodd-Frank regulations being passed back then to try to stop these things from being regular. We can't just buyout every bank that collapses.
---------
At a minimum, I want to see major banks (similar to AIG) teetering on the brink before we reach for those tools again. This absolutely should not, and cannot, be our main way forward whenever a banking issue arises.
It was in fact a "one time" thing done to save the banks. I have not even reached 40 years of age but have lived through somehow 4 "once in a lifetime" economic events. Perhaps economists believe that the human lifespan is only a few years?
> Banks that may be otherwise solvent may become insolvent because of a domino risk of bank runs.
That to me implies the bank was never solvent in the first place. You could have easily created a bank that is always solvent, see the case of The Narrow Bank, but the Fed wouldn't allow it.
I don’t disagree with narrow banking. But the situation we are in is all based on the banking system we have today. And that banking system does have real systemic risk today.
Sure, the monetary&banking system today is a corrupt clusterfuck that will inevitably collapse under the weight of all the unproductive debt that's built up. That's why I'm a bitcoiner.
In what bizarro world should holding cash in a perfectly legitimate bank to earn a negligible interest rate be considered "taking a financial risk" on par with like buying crypto or something???
That bizzaro world of deposits bearing risk is the one we’ve all been knowingly living in for the entire history of banking.
The FDIC is a modern intervention that protects most personal and small business accounts from needing to consider that risk.
Clearly, some people who grew up in the shadow of that insurance protection failed to learn about this “bizarro” world that they lived in and made uninformed choices when they suddenly came into money.
But the world never changed, just the naiveté of the people making deposits.
So they are earning an interest? As long as that is above 0 and not negative they should expect that some gambling is going on. After all there is no risk free investment.
“Interest” is not the same as “risk with investment.”
You don’t open a savings acct and get told “you could lose this money.”
You’re given a sold-to-you contract from the bank for a specific rate of return for the privilege of them being allowed to hold and work with your money.
Because there is incredible social utility in having the most basic form of money (bank deposits) actually retain its value without depositors having to think too hard about it.
The CEO pushed to ease regulations, and the lack of regulations led to this over-indexing in risk that was clear as daylight. But no one cared because they helped out startups, everyone knew the CEO personally, the VCs had relationships with the banks, etc.
Saying that "no one could see that coming" was wrong. Now the crybaby VCs THAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THIS PANIC IN THE FIRST PLACE get their way by preserving their investments, but hopefully the stark hypocrisy of Biden, first saying that millionaires "need to pay their fair share" and then immediately turning around and bailing his Silicon Valley VC buddies out, will be brought up time and time again during the election cycle.
Yup the government isn't spending tens of billions to bail out a bank with "Silicon Valley" in its title. Supporting it is an instant election loss for any politician on either side of the aisle.
I disagree - it’ll be bailed out in the same manner by which “pro labor” (yet actually a scab) Biden promised to help the workers at railways - but instead made it illegal to strike.
Rep and Dem alike - this election season is going to be worse than 2016. Strap in.
Why does the government & media get away with using words like "contagion"?
If a single bank failure were to precipitate the collapse of the US banking system as a whole, this isn't a contagion. It is the reality of the insanely fragile nature of US banking.
As it ought to be. Idiots gave some idiots money who banked said money with idiots. The answer is not for the government to step in and rescue the idiots. The idiocy will only proliferate when that happens.
The people running SVB seem to never have run a bank before. Do you know how I know that? THEY ARE OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY FLEW IT INTO THE GROUND.
The media does it because sensationalism is the only thing they know. The non-sensationalist outlets went out of business a long time ago. Turns out, facts don’t sell newspapers.
The government is the same, except they are looking for votes, not sales. They have to convince you that they’re doing big, important things, and that their opponents are commie/nazis who want to kill God/send us back to the stone ages.
Also, there’s a little risk of contagion, so… it isn’t totally wrong to talk about that.
My cynical 2 cents. It explains almost all of the silly behavior I hear about from my more political friends.
Has there been any good reporting on why so many tech startups had large amounts of uninsured cash deposits? This has been a solved problem for a long time.
It’s hearsay, honestly, but I heard that participating in their venture loan program involved keeping your deposits exclusively with them as a form of collateral.
For hyperoptimistic founders and VC’s, the opportunity for loans where they aren’t otherwise available may have thrown responsible banking practices out the window.
It would fit the character of the startup industry, seems reasonable from a lending standpoint, and explains why VC’s are now acting like they got caught with their pants down, so I’m curious of there’s truth to it.
Anecdotally, most founders are extremely busy and much of their financial success is in finding product/market-fit to maximize equity value. Therefore, learning about maximizing interest and managing dozens of bank accounts to minimize insolvency risk didn’t seem like a good use of time. Parking cash in SVB, which had been around for 40 years (with some investors even requiring startups to bank with them), seemed like a safe, secure option. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 here.
As a Independent non-aligned American voter, I have to ask myself did Peter Thiel deliberately cause a run on SVB? Did Elon Musk buy Twitter to destroy it as an effective platform for Democratic organizing? Is Musk coordinating with Tucker Carlson to push propaganda that Jan 6 was merely constitutionally protected protest? And are House Republicans coordinating with Thiel, Musk and Tucker Carlson over the debt ceiling limit to cause a financial crisis to bring down the Federal government to accrue power to themselves? Like Carlson, I'm just asking questions.
Only the Jan 6 protest outside the in-use government buildings was constitutionally protected. As far as I know the congress does not have to allow random people to disturb them while in session and can enforce that. In general, it's safe for the police to do so, I think they should arrest all rioters on basic misdemeanor charges, do a bit of investigation, and then let those go who did not do anything. Obviously in this case if you went into the senate chamber you would get at least a misdemeanor trespassing charge.
There’s been a big effort on both sides to rewrite history. A bunch of dumb, rowdy protestors made some dumb moves. One side heralds them as patriotic heroes. The other as dangerous, violent insurrectionists the like of which we’ve never seen.
Nah. They were just a big, dumb crowd doing big dumb things.
I agree with you. There were small groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys who invaded the capitol in "stack" formations following premeditated plans. Nobody talks about them much. Instead the media wants to talk about the hapless enthusiasts who LARPed their way into committing minor crimes following the breaches created by these more committed groups.
Well, the one person who tried to “peacefully” climb over several barriers, bust a window, and enter any sort of chambers (while screaming and threatening violence) was shot due to the threat of the other several hundred “peaceful protestors” that day. I guess you and I have read different accounts of what went down.
That video of the Capitol Police escorting the QAnon shaman through the building and opening doors for him is pretty damning. If he was not authorized to be there, the police should have thrown him out, not given him a guided tour. Charging him after the fact seems highly suspect. If he had a good faith belief that he was authorized to be there, because of the actions and statements made by police officers, then he should not have been convicted. But he is currently serving a 41 month sentence after pleading guilty.
Anyone fighting with cops or otherwise rioting deserves whatever charges are appropriate for those actions though.
As explained by Lawrence O'Donnell, the capitol police were out-numbered and could not safely take anyone into custody, and doing so would take them away from their duties to protect the capitol. At that point they were escorting him to a safe place.
If the footage had been made available as legally required, they could have figured issues like that out during trial. Unfortunately the footage was not made available by the state, and now it's questionable whether Chansley will appeal, given how he will be released shortly. Jonathan Turley has a good summary of the situation: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/08/did-the-qanon-shaman-g...
If this happens, banks have officially lost all their legitimacy and all banks should have their priviledges revoked.
There is absolutely no reason banks should be given the priviledge of being the only way to deposit money, while playing with those customers money and simultaneously having zero risk on that money.
These banks are getting 10 to 1 leverage, from me, captive customer. Break their monopoly. I want an account at the Fed, and I want zero banks to be able to take leverage with my money, unless and until these banks give me a worthwhile interest rates on deposits. Let them actually compete. Right now it's not a competition, there are too big to fail banks which actually hold deposits, and there are small banks which can fail arbitrarily and cannot possibly compete because they actually assume the risk themselves.
I want zero risk CBDC. At the Fed. With the Fed's current interest rates as they give to real banks.
All their privileges should be gone. They can stay as investment institutions and if you trust them as that you're free to put your money there.
They get all the priviledge with no responsibility. If they cover for them, this should be the end of banking. Nothing less. Digital coin with zero risk and connection to all standard paying systems. Same interest as banks. Demote banks to investment institutions and make their special priviledges obsolete. No bank except the Fed will be too big to fail then, when no one's forcing you to bank anywhere.
They are officially announcing to all listening banks that customers deposits are theirs to gamble with as they please. Why do banks get to play with those deposits, as if they were just free leverage from unwilling captive participants?
How can small banks compete against big banks that can allow themselves to act this way?
They can't. If you're big you get to risk it all. If you're small nobody will come to you as they know they won't be insured by a spooked Fed stopping "contagion".
There's no legitimate reason to keep banks priviledge as a government supported oligopoly of investment institutions allowed to play with other people's money. If you admit the government is actually backstopping those deposits, there is absolutely zero reasons why banks get to gamble it in the first place. They are getting to eat the cake and have it too. This has to stop.
If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again. If the bank gambled away all your money and the government came and made you whole, you'd look to become a banker too so you get to gamble away money that isn't yours.
> If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again
Apart from the arguing about the definition of gambling here applied to the SVB situation, no one is going to be able to give SVB another dime after this. They no longer exist. This is the exact opposite of risk free.
Really? https://www.svbsecurities.com/team/joseph-gentile/ Joseph Gentile would like a word with you.
I'm sure this guy had absolutely no experience with having MBS blow up in his face as interest rates rise.
It's sad you're actually satisfied with a fictitious corporate entity "dying" when these people have perfected the art of making hostage situations with other people's money. It's all continuing because they get to successfully trade the hostages for a bailout each time. This guy is a professional Madoff, the only difference between them is that this guy is abusing bank's priviledge to get the government to backstop his ponzies.
You want a quasi-government agency to have unlimited tracking and control over your transactions? Banks may suck but a CBDC is straight up scary. It's bad enough we have to put up with the capriciousness of the Fed's monetary policy, the less power they have the better.
I want an equal seat at the table so that the other players will stop exploiting me. Until and unless you get an equal seat at the table, you can't hope to get the banks to behave. I might actually still put my money in a bank after they are forced to be aligned with my incentives. You might not be aware, but anti-money-laundering means that whatever it is that's scaring you about CBDC has already been going on for years at the banks. They also get to sell your data because all of them do it.
With CBDC I get to put in my bank what I don't want with the government and vice versa.
They are using you as leverage because you have zero leverage on them. There are bank runs and the JP morgan stock is going up, because people have literally nowhere to flee to.
Government control of something, while a risk that may result in “vogon-like” systems, is still better than for profit shareholder driven corporations.
People have been known to overthrow their own governments because of fuckery.
Corporations have been known to lobby gov and hire thugs to keep upset labor and customer pools held down.
Government already has quasi-unlimited tracking and control over your transactions through banks. $10,000 deposits are reported. Suspicious activity on anything over $5,000 is reported. These are small sums of money from the perspective of a government. They're easily small enough that any individual who tries to step out of the lower class easily gets under the eyes of government.
I literally can't dream up a worse policy choice than to highly incentivize the almost immediate withdrawal of every non-insured deposit in the country from the banking system just so the money can be parked in t-bills. Every bank intervention has some degree of being unpalatable for various reasons, but you know why we do it? Because it's better than the alternative. Sorry. Remember when that money market fund broke the buck in 08? You can't have these sorts of products not getting par, all hell will break loose.
Right now, the thing that worries me the most is idiot politicians (redundant) inserting themselves and focusing on tangential things like who got paid a bonus or whatever. These people will - R and D - manage to screw it up.
Those lobbyist are hard at work. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen may have said that there will be no bail out, but mark my words: The vultures will get their money back.
I have worked in government, both policy, and political, for 22 years. The only thing that makes the government actually move is money. The majority of the powers that be cannot afford to alienate Silicon Valley campaign cash.
Be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy.
89 comments
[ 7.1 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadAppears that leadership at the highest levels seems to be clearly aware that the problem at SVB had to do with bond prices/rates (rather than anything startup/tech/Silicon Valley specific), and that other banks may have the situation and be vulnerable to "contagion".
Are other banks that are in danger are now halting bonuses in anticipation to make sure to keep their books as sound as possible.
And are they issuing new equity, diluting shareholders and employee option holders, to make sure they make it through responsibly?
No bailout for SVB; no bailout for you.
It's not the taxpayer's burden to insure >250k worth of your cash in one location.
Another option is to deal directly with the federal government and buy bonds from them (likely through a bank but your money doesn't have to stay there for long). Then only the most catastrophic scenario would see you losing money. You are still subject to inflation and interest rate risk.
But honestly at that point, worry about having guns and knowing how to use them, not where your money is.
One last edit to add that Treasury is making all depositors whole. So, really, all of this is moot... besides the guns :)
All of the interest SVB depositors were rewarded with was coming from MBS. Heads, I get extra interest, tails, government bails my deposit out.
Equity and bond holders are a totally different group of people, they are investors in that bank. They are explicitly taking risk on the bank as an investment, not as a basic piece of their financial plumbing.
Glad we agree then, that's pretty much all I'm looking for.
The only way an SVB can exist is if banks are allowed to take risk.
* Customers (both individuals and companies) get to generally continue to view banking as a high confidence, high trust activity. Consider the existing cost and friction of KYC and other due diligence measures which are imposed asymmetrically. Reduction to a low-trust environment would seem to double up the friction.
* SBV bought a shit load of longer-term US debt (which is apparently what did them in). Based on current fiscal habits, the US government needs to keep this debt attractive, especially to domestic buyers. There's nothing it can do about the risk of interest rates changing, but the last thing it wants is for depositors to put pressure on banks to avoid long-term US debt.
When people take financial risks (such as holding more than $250K in FDIC insured bank account), why should taxpayers cover their losses?
It doesn’t follow that there will be any losses to cover. The government can take ownership of the assets of the bank and won’t be stuck having to sell them at a loss.
They are indeed trying to shrink their balance sheet, but at the volumes they are working at, the entirety of SVBs assets amount to a few months of the fed’s current volumes.
After two years, that bond now has FMV of 1000/(1.02^8) = $853. But then interest rates increase to 4%, so its FMV drops to 1000/(1.04^8) = $731.
If we sold today at the FMV then we'd realize an $89 loss from our purchase price. That's neither better nor worse than holding to maturity, though--that's what makes it the FMV. In the case where we sell, we'd get $731 now, but we could reinvest it at 4%. After the remaining eight years, that would give us 731*(1.04^8) = $1000, exactly the same as if we'd held.
HTM accounting treats the two cases as different, but that's an arbitrary regulatory decision, untethered from any economic reality. It has no meaning outside that narrow compliance purpose. The SVB's decision to treat that accounting fiction as if it were economically meaningful appears to be a major part of how they blew themselves up.
Banks that may be otherwise solvent may become insolvent because of a domino risk of bank runs.
Probably the right thing to do is forced equity dilution of a bank experiencing a run. That is, the Fed buys senior equity in the bank and the injection pays for short term losses.
The equity injection guarantee alone would likely be enough to stop the contagion and calm markets.
I thought "TARP" / equity injections into banks was a "never again" kinda deal. With Dodd-Frank regulations being passed back then to try to stop these things from being regular. We can't just buyout every bank that collapses.
---------
At a minimum, I want to see major banks (similar to AIG) teetering on the brink before we reach for those tools again. This absolutely should not, and cannot, be our main way forward whenever a banking issue arises.
I’d also insist that the govt/fdic must sell their shares on the open market with 30 days, even at a loss.
That to me implies the bank was never solvent in the first place. You could have easily created a bank that is always solvent, see the case of The Narrow Bank, but the Fed wouldn't allow it.
Most likely there are no losses so long as the assets don’t need to be sold in a fire sale. The bank just needs liquidity.
The FDIC is a modern intervention that protects most personal and small business accounts from needing to consider that risk.
Clearly, some people who grew up in the shadow of that insurance protection failed to learn about this “bizarro” world that they lived in and made uninformed choices when they suddenly came into money.
But the world never changed, just the naiveté of the people making deposits.
You don’t open a savings acct and get told “you could lose this money.”
You’re given a sold-to-you contract from the bank for a specific rate of return for the privilege of them being allowed to hold and work with your money.
If one chooses to dep >250k - that’s on them.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2023/03/silicon-valley-ba...
The CEO pushed to ease regulations, and the lack of regulations led to this over-indexing in risk that was clear as daylight. But no one cared because they helped out startups, everyone knew the CEO personally, the VCs had relationships with the banks, etc.
Saying that "no one could see that coming" was wrong. Now the crybaby VCs THAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THIS PANIC IN THE FIRST PLACE get their way by preserving their investments, but hopefully the stark hypocrisy of Biden, first saying that millionaires "need to pay their fair share" and then immediately turning around and bailing his Silicon Valley VC buddies out, will be brought up time and time again during the election cycle.
Rep and Dem alike - this election season is going to be worse than 2016. Strap in.
If a single bank failure were to precipitate the collapse of the US banking system as a whole, this isn't a contagion. It is the reality of the insanely fragile nature of US banking.
You better hope people don't lose confidence on their Bank by Monday.
The government is the same, except they are looking for votes, not sales. They have to convince you that they’re doing big, important things, and that their opponents are commie/nazis who want to kill God/send us back to the stone ages.
Also, there’s a little risk of contagion, so… it isn’t totally wrong to talk about that.
My cynical 2 cents. It explains almost all of the silly behavior I hear about from my more political friends.
https://www.intrafi.com/solutions/depositors/
https://americandeposits.com/how-it-works/
There's no reason for a small business to have any uninsured cash deposits. Is this a corruption story? Are they all just that incompetent?
For hyperoptimistic founders and VC’s, the opportunity for loans where they aren’t otherwise available may have thrown responsible banking practices out the window.
It would fit the character of the startup industry, seems reasonable from a lending standpoint, and explains why VC’s are now acting like they got caught with their pants down, so I’m curious of there’s truth to it.
I have heard through the grapevine that some startups were locked into varying exclusivity deals with SVB.
Nah. They were just a big, dumb crowd doing big dumb things.
Anyone fighting with cops or otherwise rioting deserves whatever charges are appropriate for those actions though.
There is absolutely no reason banks should be given the priviledge of being the only way to deposit money, while playing with those customers money and simultaneously having zero risk on that money.
These banks are getting 10 to 1 leverage, from me, captive customer. Break their monopoly. I want an account at the Fed, and I want zero banks to be able to take leverage with my money, unless and until these banks give me a worthwhile interest rates on deposits. Let them actually compete. Right now it's not a competition, there are too big to fail banks which actually hold deposits, and there are small banks which can fail arbitrarily and cannot possibly compete because they actually assume the risk themselves.
I want zero risk CBDC. At the Fed. With the Fed's current interest rates as they give to real banks.
All their privileges should be gone. They can stay as investment institutions and if you trust them as that you're free to put your money there.
They get all the priviledge with no responsibility. If they cover for them, this should be the end of banking. Nothing less. Digital coin with zero risk and connection to all standard paying systems. Same interest as banks. Demote banks to investment institutions and make their special priviledges obsolete. No bank except the Fed will be too big to fail then, when no one's forcing you to bank anywhere.
How can small banks compete against big banks that can allow themselves to act this way? They can't. If you're big you get to risk it all. If you're small nobody will come to you as they know they won't be insured by a spooked Fed stopping "contagion".
There's no legitimate reason to keep banks priviledge as a government supported oligopoly of investment institutions allowed to play with other people's money. If you admit the government is actually backstopping those deposits, there is absolutely zero reasons why banks get to gamble it in the first place. They are getting to eat the cake and have it too. This has to stop.
If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again. If the bank gambled away all your money and the government came and made you whole, you'd look to become a banker too so you get to gamble away money that isn't yours.
Apart from the arguing about the definition of gambling here applied to the SVB situation, no one is going to be able to give SVB another dime after this. They no longer exist. This is the exact opposite of risk free.
It's sad you're actually satisfied with a fictitious corporate entity "dying" when these people have perfected the art of making hostage situations with other people's money. It's all continuing because they get to successfully trade the hostages for a bailout each time. This guy is a professional Madoff, the only difference between them is that this guy is abusing bank's priviledge to get the government to backstop his ponzies.
With CBDC I get to put in my bank what I don't want with the government and vice versa.
They are using you as leverage because you have zero leverage on them. There are bank runs and the JP morgan stock is going up, because people have literally nowhere to flee to.
People have been known to overthrow their own governments because of fuckery.
Corporations have been known to lobby gov and hire thugs to keep upset labor and customer pools held down.
Right now, the thing that worries me the most is idiot politicians (redundant) inserting themselves and focusing on tangential things like who got paid a bonus or whatever. These people will - R and D - manage to screw it up.
I have worked in government, both policy, and political, for 22 years. The only thing that makes the government actually move is money. The majority of the powers that be cannot afford to alienate Silicon Valley campaign cash.
Be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy.