Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

Saw this on the frontpage here on HN right after reading the article "Silicon Valley Bank shut down by regulators, UK arm confirms it’s a standalone independent entity"

> Silicon Valley Bank UK has moved to reassure UK clients and partners it is ring-fenced from the turmoil experienced by its parent US company.

> “As a reminder, Silicon Valley Bank UK is a standalone entity with its own balance sheet and governance structure. SVB has supported investors and innovators for 40 years and we have been so humbled with the consistent drum of support coming from our UK investor and founder community in last few days,” said Erin Platts, CEO and Head of EMEA.

> “We appreciate that this is a concerning time for our clients so we are working tirelessly to support them and give more context,” she added.

> The UK arm of the business told customers today that it operates as a standalone “independent banking institution” that is regulated and governed by the PRA in the UK.

> “Silicon Valley Bank UK fully abides by the UK regulatory requirements as covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and by the Financial Ombudsman Service. SVB UK, Ltd. is ring-fenced from the parent and its other subsidiaries,” the company said.

https://www.altfi.com/article/10503_silicon-valley-bank-shut...

Guess they weren't as independent as they thought they were.

> Guess they weren't as independent as they thought they were.

Simply sharing the same name could be dependent enough to trigger bank run...

When they say not to panic... panic

In the age of social networks, there's nothing but incessant outrage and instant panic.

"Panic moves at the speed of information." I read that on Schlock Mercenary (web comic), but the author may have stolen the idea from somewhere else.

Especially since the cost of panic is small for the individual but the risk of not doing it is huge

Unless you're in the top 1% of the country when it comes to savings and income, the risk is not that high, you have guaranteed access to up to £85,000 or even £170,000 for joint accounts. It seems that even those above 55, only have on average £20K saved.

That's for "haircuts".

Bankruptcies means money gone. Poof.

From the FSCS:

> If you hold money with a UK-authorised bank, building society or credit union that fails, we’ll automatically compensate you.

> up to £85,000 per eligible person, per bank, building society or credit union.

> up to £170,000 for joint accounts.

Not sure what you're talking about. This is from TFA:

> The Bank of England, absent any meaningful further information, intends to apply to the Court to place Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited (‘SVBUK’) into a Bank Insolvency Procedure. A Bank Insolvency Procedure would mean that eligible depositors are paid out by the FSCS as quickly as possible up to the protected limit of £85,000 or up to £170,000 for joint accounts.

Yea, im obviously talking about business accounts with over 250k. If less then yea the risk is smaller (you still risk loosing temporary access to your money).

It is not rational to start a bank run, but when there is a bank run, it is actually rational to participate.

When you see a bank in condition that a bank run would be a reasonable response, it is rational to pull your money out now. If enough people act rationally (or have that information) at the same time, then a bank run starts, by people acting rationally.

> Guess they weren't as independent as they thought they were.

The BOE obviously knows a lot more than is letting on. My guess is the bank had the same investment strategy of its parent, but failed even without much of a panic from customers?!

According to the FT[1] SVB UK asked the BoE for £1.8 billion in short term funding on Friday. I'm not entirely surprised this was their answer.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/e74dfe88-b372-4b57-9d7d-1a2600498... (possibly paywalled)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com