I don't understand this comment. 1) SVB was not managed by VC's. 2) SVB went under because they bought US Treasuries, not because they took risky bets on startups.
If nobody is rushing, SVB could probably find ways to sell something before it's too late.
Such extreme exposure to interest rate risk would've blown up in some other ways - say, a large client processing a routine payroll, executing stock buyback, or investing in an entity that banks elsewhere.
That's not their fault. Would you keep your money in an insolvent bank?
1. If they had more short dated treasuries, they could have used them to fund drawdowns, and would not have had to sell their long dated treasuries, that went underwater as interest rates rise.
2. If they had not been overly exposed to one sector, a sector that largely existed due to 'free money' of zero interest rates, then large scale draw downs would not have happened as interest rates rise.
I think this is very much in question. Silicon Valley Bank was absolutely part of a cohesive microeconomy. There's no other explanation for the absolutely uniformity with which all those startups were using it for what should have been 100% commodity banking services. Those startups all banked with SVB because their VCs told them to.
And the VCs told their startups to bank with SVB because... we don't know yet. But any time you have a signal this strong, there's a driver.
Add to that the fact that the moment all those startups seemed likely to lose banking services, however temporarily, those same VCs freaked the fuck out of their minds on twitter and started shrieking in all caps about the end of western capitalism. That's not mere concern for their poor startups (most of whom were going to fail anyway, after all -- they're startups!). These VCs were exposed to the SVB failure. They were leveraged somehow and about to get caught holding the bag.
There was some kind of insider dealing going on with SVB. It wasn't just a bank. We for sure know that much. Whether we have criminal fraud or not is an open question.
Big wire in from a fundraising round? Account frozen. Big wire out for an acquisition? Account frozen. Bank learns your customers include cryptocurrency companies? Account frozen. Bank account balance huge relative to your business' cashflow? Account frozen. Random bank staff doesn't understand what you're doing? Account frozen.
In that kind of climate its almost inevitable that VC's would recommend a single bank known to not behave erratically for the activities that are usual for their investments.
In other words, SVB used these companies to produce new money that they could earn interest on.
The point is that these VC's didn't act to support their investments, they flailed around begging for bailout (that they probably didn't need but they didn't understand banking well enough to know that or bother to consult any experts before making public statements).
They behaved badly and should be embarrassed and everyone should remember it.
Because they preached for years that regulation is bad, and the government shouldn't be involved in their financial affairs.
Then when something went wrong, they begged for a bailout from the very regulators they disdained: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/urgent-sign-the-petition-no...
I'm not even convinced that the depositors made whole here were innocent--they accepted a known risk by exceeding the risk-free FDIC limit. The sad part is that in our society, we have no qualms about literally turning working people out into the street when they make financial missteps, but the already-wealthy receive prompt intervention from the highest levels to protect them and other wealthy people from the consequences of their investment decisions.
What argument is really left for this kind of intervention, besides appeals to the trickle-down system where the rich must be vigilantly protected since the rest of our society is set up to be disrupted when they fail. The whole system is morally and politically bankrupt.
They are the innocent party here though (well, except for maybe Peter Thiel). The depositors didn't cause this problem.
Being against student loan forgiveness or any sort of help to anyone, ever, but then running to mommy Yellen the second you get in trouble is just too hypocritical to believe.
If that's where you (philosophical you, not you personally) landed on those two issues, you can get fucked.
SVB regularly provides credit to risky startups, which is why they existed in the first place (because other banks wouldn't lend at those rates). So, yes, they sorta did place risky bets on startups.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rich-falk-wallace_silicon-val...
#1: Mortgage backed securities: $82B (83% residential) #2: Direct loans: $74B (55% short term loans to VCs & PE) #3: Liquid assets: $55B