SVB failure

[Anonymous]

You have to love finance! When big banks buckle they are too big to fail. When regional banks buckle now they are too small to fail, this is brilliant!

When profits soar it’s all due to their skill and big bonuses are deserved/earned. When things go bad it’s the system and risk and govt/tax payers need to solve/bail them out. I mean they paid out bonuses the day they went bankrupt, and I guarantee they will keep them (maybe the CEO will give back like 5% of what he earned over the past decade). In 2 years they will be arguing for less taxes and burdensome regulations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who work at startups like SVB are doing so to put food on the table for their families; not all are rich techbros.

Also being a rich techbro is okay.

So bailing out rich techbro with public money because they ignored FDIC insurance limits is okay?

Bailing out a bank so that employees of startups that bank with SVB can eat next week is okay.

Follow the money, these were not all small startups. ROKU had almost $500M, which was only 25% of their cash. You telling me Roku taking maybe a 10% haircut, $50M on what seems to be close to 2B in cash, is somehow unmanageable? Now their investors and execs who wouldn’t be making bonus may not like it but there is no material effect here.

Even the smaller companies, there is equity and we were looking at only a small hit to them, maybe even less than 5%. Why not give everyone access to 80% of their funds and figure out the loss after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who work at startups like SVB are doing so to put food on the table for their families; not all are rich techbros.

Also being a rich techbro is okay.

So bailing out rich techbro with public money because they ignored FDIC insurance limits is okay?

Bailing out a bank so that employees of startups that bank with SVB can eat next week is okay.

That was never a risk. They already had a plan for the $250k + dividend against current assets.

Unless that weeks payroll needed more than 80% of their assets on Monday, nobody was missing a meal or a paycheck.

You really believed that payroll story??

[Anonymous]

And guess who is the new SVB ceo? The former ceo from Fannie Mae lol you can’t make this shit up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to love finance! When big banks buckle they are too big to fail. When regional banks buckle now they are too small to fail, this is brilliant!

When profits soar it’s all due to their skill and big bonuses are deserved/earned. When things go bad it’s the system and risk and govt/tax payers need to solve/bail them out. I mean they paid out bonuses the day they went bankrupt, and I guarantee they will keep them (maybe the CEO will give back like 5% of what he earned over the past decade). In 2 years they will be arguing for less taxes and burdensome regulations!

The owners of SVB (the equity holders) were the ones paying the big bonuses and they have been duly punished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Ashley Tyrner, CEO of Boston wellness firm FarmboxRx, said she had at least $10m deposited with SVB and has been frantically calling her banker. She called it 'the worst 18 hours of my life.'

Honest question -- should we care about that?

Should you care about one individual and company? No, probably not.

Should you care that thousands of companies only have access to $250k? Yes. If all of these companies didn't make payroll this week then it would have serious consequences.

There was an interview on NPR yesterday in which a startup that banked with SVB said they chose it because SVB understood the needs of tech startups, and what I hear when I hear that is "We needed financing from someplace that shares our delusions rather than looking for actual financial value."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Ashley Tyrner, CEO of Boston wellness firm FarmboxRx, said she had at least $10m deposited with SVB and has been frantically calling her banker. She called it 'the worst 18 hours of my life.'

Honest question -- should we care about that?

Should you care about one individual and company? No, probably not.

Should you care that thousands of companies only have access to $250k? Yes. If all of these companies didn't make payroll this week then it would have serious consequences.

There was an interview on NPR yesterday in which a startup that banked with SVB said they chose it because SVB understood the needs of tech startups, and what I hear when I hear that is "We needed financing from someplace that shares our delusions rather than looking for actual financial value."

But that is exactly the nature of a start-up, PP. They're all delusional until they make it. How much would you have given Jeff Bezos to sell heavy books by mail via an internet portal, out of his parents' garage??? It was crazy, and yet he made it.

Investing in risky propositions is not for traditional banking, which is quite conservative. This is a different banking - a necessary one that brings out-of-the-box ideas to market - and it requires an entirely different framework of priorities and beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to love finance! When big banks buckle they are too big to fail. When regional banks buckle now they are too small to fail, this is brilliant!

When profits soar it’s all due to their skill and big bonuses are deserved/earned. When things go bad it’s the system and risk and govt/tax payers need to solve/bail them out. I mean they paid out bonuses the day they went bankrupt, and I guarantee they will keep them (maybe the CEO will give back like 5% of what he earned over the past decade). In 2 years they will be arguing for less taxes and burdensome regulations!

The owners of SVB (the equity holders) were the ones paying the big bonuses and they have been duly punished.

how were they punished?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who work at startups like SVB are doing so to put food on the table for their families; not all are rich techbros.

Also being a rich techbro is okay.

So bailing out rich techbro with public money because they ignored FDIC insurance limits is okay?

Bailing out a bank so that employees of startups that bank with SVB can eat next week is okay.

Follow the money, these were not all small startups. ROKU had almost $500M, which was only 25% of their cash. You telling me Roku taking maybe a 10% haircut, $50M on what seems to be close to 2B in cash, is somehow unmanageable? Now their investors and execs who wouldn’t be making bonus may not like it but there is no material effect here.

Even the smaller companies, there is equity and we were looking at only a small hit to them, maybe even less than 5%. Why not give everyone access to 80% of their funds and figure out the loss after that.

The whole payroll story is such a joke, this is how the public is manipulated. If these companies need 100% of their cash just to make payroll they were going under regardless. The original plan was the fdic insurance plus a large percentage of the rest which would have paid out this week, this almost every company would have made payroll. But that wasn’t enough, full bailout basically extending fdic insurance to all deposits.

Maybe someone should start a bank today, guarantee like a 8% CD rate to suck in all the deposits. If things go well you make a ton of money, once things crash just have the govt payout since it’s all quasi insured now. Billionaires could just buy billion dollar CD’s with a no risk guaranteed rate better than the market. No moral hazard here folks, this will all work out great long term….at least for the bankers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Ashley Tyrner, CEO of Boston wellness firm FarmboxRx, said she had at least $10m deposited with SVB and has been frantically calling her banker. She called it 'the worst 18 hours of my life.'

Honest question -- should we care about that?

Should you care about one individual and company? No, probably not.

Should you care that thousands of companies only have access to $250k? Yes. If all of these companies didn't make payroll this week then it would have serious consequences.

There was an interview on NPR yesterday in which a startup that banked with SVB said they chose it because SVB understood the needs of tech startups, and what I hear when I hear that is "We needed financing from someplace that shares our delusions rather than looking for actual financial value."

But that is exactly the nature of a start-up, PP. They're all delusional until they make it. How much would you have given Jeff Bezos to sell heavy books by mail via an internet portal, out of his parents' garage??? It was crazy, and yet he made it.

Investing in risky propositions is not for traditional banking, which is quite conservative. This is a different banking - a necessary one that brings out-of-the-box ideas to market - and it requires an entirely different framework of priorities and beliefs.

What you describe is venture capital. Has nothing to do with banks who should stay far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who work at startups like SVB are doing so to put food on the table for their families; not all are rich techbros.

Also being a rich techbro is okay.

So bailing out rich techbro with public money because they ignored FDIC insurance limits is okay?

Bailing out a bank so that employees of startups that bank with SVB can eat next week is okay.

Follow the money, these were not all small startups. ROKU had almost $500M, which was only 25% of their cash. You telling me Roku taking maybe a 10% haircut, $50M on what seems to be close to 2B in cash, is somehow unmanageable? Now their investors and execs who wouldn’t be making bonus may not like it but there is no material effect here.

Even the smaller companies, there is equity and we were looking at only a small hit to them, maybe even less than 5%. Why not give everyone access to 80% of their funds and figure out the loss after that.

The whole payroll story is such a joke, this is how the public is manipulated. If these companies need 100% of their cash just to make payroll they were going under regardless. The original plan was the fdic insurance plus a large percentage of the rest which would have paid out this week, this almost every company would have made payroll. But that wasn’t enough, full bailout basically extending fdic insurance to all deposits.

Maybe someone should start a bank today, guarantee like a 8% CD rate to suck in all the deposits. If things go well you make a ton of money, once things crash just have the govt payout since it’s all quasi insured now. Billionaires could just buy billion dollar CD’s with a no risk guaranteed rate better than the market. No moral hazard here folks, this will all work out great long term….at least for the bankers!

Thank you. I feel like I’m tilting at windmills. There was no desperation for putting food on the table; the existing FDIC dividend plan and expected 10%-20% deposit holder haircut was hardly the start of breadlines. But now the billionaires who got juiced returns from SVB accounts are made hole despite ignoring the risk of being above FDIC limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And guess who is the new SVB ceo? The former ceo from Fannie Mae lol you can’t make this shit up

so much for finding a buyer at auction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to love finance! When big banks buckle they are too big to fail. When regional banks buckle now they are too small to fail, this is brilliant!

When profits soar it’s all due to their skill and big bonuses are deserved/earned. When things go bad it’s the system and risk and govt/tax payers need to solve/bail them out. I mean they paid out bonuses the day they went bankrupt, and I guarantee they will keep them (maybe the CEO will give back like 5% of what he earned over the past decade). In 2 years they will be arguing for less taxes and burdensome regulations!

+1. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to love finance! When big banks buckle they are too big to fail. When regional banks buckle now they are too small to fail, this is brilliant!

When profits soar it’s all due to their skill and big bonuses are deserved/earned. When things go bad it’s the system and risk and govt/tax payers need to solve/bail them out. I mean they paid out bonuses the day they went bankrupt, and I guarantee they will keep them (maybe the CEO will give back like 5% of what he earned over the past decade). In 2 years they will be arguing for less taxes and burdensome regulations!

The owners of SVB (the equity holders) were the ones paying the big bonuses and they have been duly punished.

how were they punished?

Those who held stock into SVB have had their entire investment wiped out. PP is correct that the SBV stockholders, who are the owners of the bank, agreed to SBV compensation terms for senior management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Ashley Tyrner, CEO of Boston wellness firm FarmboxRx, said she had at least $10m deposited with SVB and has been frantically calling her banker. She called it 'the worst 18 hours of my life.'

Honest question -- should we care about that?

Should you care about one individual and company? No, probably not.

Should you care that thousands of companies only have access to $250k? Yes. If all of these companies didn't make payroll this week then it would have serious consequences.

There was an interview on NPR yesterday in which a startup that banked with SVB said they chose it because SVB understood the needs of tech startups, and what I hear when I hear that is "We needed financing from someplace that shares our delusions rather than looking for actual financial value."

They had wrap around services. There was another article where a startup CEO was talking about the portage application process for a $4M home only taking a week and the interest rate being 2% vs 4% everyone else was advertising