Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by chitowneats | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chitowneats

"Very safe" was always a complete lie. It assumed a certain macro-economic environment that is now over.

Why do we allow these people to profit off the gains of their successful bets while socializing their losses?

The pitchforks are coming out at some point. "Gradually, then suddenly."

That Hemingway quote feels very relevant lately.

View on HN

Okay so now I'm very confused; what was the expected "profit" here, on this investment?

Are you actually arguing that SVB and their depositors haven't seen immense profits in the past few decades? 250k is FDIC insured. Beyond that, a massive haircut is the only fair solution.

They made a bet on 10-year government bonds. It didn't work out due to rising interest rates. Whoops? Not my fucking problem. Unless they get their way and make us all pay for it.

Edit: This account is shadow-banned. I can't directly respond to the comment below. Luckily for me, I already thoroughly explained my point. This has nothing to do with "bankers" and everything to do with unbelievable hypocrisy from the SV founder & investor class. You all are so fucking full of shit. Flag this comment, please. After being totally swindled in 2008, I predict Americans are going to react to this rationally, which will be very bad for you. Good luck assholes.

But the people you're suggesting should take a haircut (the depositors) did not make a bet on 10-year government bonds. They just put their money in a well-reputed bank. Why would they take a haircut? Wipe out SVB equity holders, sure, but depositors did nothing wrong here.

Also, you're probably not shadowbanned, sometimes there's just a delay before you can respond to a comment responding to yours. No need to name call.

This account is absolutely shadow-banned. It deserves to be. Just like VCs with balances in SVB larger than 250k deserve to lose their shirts.

Juat to confirm, I can see your comment and reply to it, so it doesn't look like you're shadow banned.

It's deboosted. Comments with 50+ karma show up at the bottom of every thread.

Again, it's deserved. I get it.

I'm asking specifically what are the "profits" were/are still to be on the investment they made here?

How are "government bonds" risky? How are they "bad" in any general sense? Just doesn't seem to fit the "greedy bankers" narrative.

They're neither good nor bad. They're just assets. Investors who bought them should bear the consequences of their decision. Depositors knew that their deposits were not insured in excess of 250K. Why do we allow certain groups of people to just rewrite the rules whenever they fail? It's ridiculous. Not to mention totally antithetical to their supposed philosophy.

The answer to your question is pretty simple, actually; the "we" would would let SVB depositors fail are also the same "we" that compose the voters and participants in the US economy who would be harmed by letting SVB depositors lose out on their money.

Allowing people to starve and die isn't really in the best interest of the very people who would starve and die, so... "we" won't let that happen.

I'm not saying we allow them to starve and die. They can apply for SNAP, EBT, and Medicaid, just like everybody else if they become truly penniless. Get a job delivering Jimmy Johns. Or just sell their vacation homes.

And again, we as a society do not find destitution/poverty to be an acceptable outcome for the "crime" of simply banking.

You seem to not understand who would be effected by this the most. It's not the people with vacation homes, it's their employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com