Hacker News Reader

Comment by paganel | Hacker News Reader

> For the Feds to put up that money as part of a deal to sell SVBs portfolio intact to another bank, makes good sense to me

Honest question: why? I.e. why can't the capitalists invested in this business absorb the reasonable haircut? (I assume it's "reasonable" based on the information we have been provided with until now). Depositors (especially those holding more than 250k) were also investors, they were getting back more money than they had put in.

View on HN

I make a clear distinction between depositors and investors. The holders of the bank's capital - it's equity and and subordinate bond debt, are at-risk investors, and should, as I said in my original post, take a 100% haircut (assuming the bank in fact has fewer assets than liabilities.) But a depositor - who probably was earning negligible interest for parking their cash in the bank - has a reasonable expectation that their deposit is safe in a regulated bank. And the government has an interest in assuring bank customers across the country that ordinary deposits are safe in regulated banks that are adequately capitalized.

SVB catered primarily to businesses - the last thing we need right now is every business worrying about where their bank deposits are. If they do worry, it may trigger more runs as they all try to move their funds to “safer” banks.

And then why shouldn’t be the whole banking system be nationalized? Businesses are capitalists by detonation (especially those based in the Bay), doing business comes with risks, managing risk is one of the basis of capitalism.

The “capitalists” invested in this business will get $0.

Look at their stock chart. Heck, look at what their bonds are paying.

There will very likely be nothing left for the “capitalists” after depositors are paid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com