66 karma · joined January 22, 2019
All that reverse engineering experience gave me a particularly useful talent as a developer: an uncanny ability to sit down and grok other people’s code almost like magic.
Solid experience with reverse engineering really is a good skill to have.
Perl gives you all the simple features from sed or AWK and adds useful (maintainable) foreach iterators, arrays, hashes, etc.
Recommend using Strict mode if you are new to Perl. It gives good guardrails against silly mistakes like not declaring or misspelling a variables, or accessing strings or numbers that aren’t the correct datatype.
Here is one of the HN articles, there are plenty more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15399689
This is not a new risk for businesses in any industry and financial services exist to help manage that risk for companies with cash on hand.
I would instead ask why the SVB customers didn’t manage this risk. Others on HN said that banking with SVB was a requirement placed by many VC companies, which does tie the customer’s hands.
In addition every offering and statement from SVB shows >$250k is not insured but they treated it like nothing bad could ever happen there. Even your average retiree knows their life savings in a bank is only covered to FDIC limits.
This risk for businesses with cash is not new. Financial services like sweep accounts, negotiable instruments, etc. existed for decades. Is it just that SV entrepreneurs are too smart or not smart enough to manage these risks? Or was it the VC firms that forced their hand by requiring them to bank at SVB (noted as a VC funding requirement by others on HN).
The companies can sell their invoices or ownership of their deposits on the market, or use it as collateral for recovery. The CFOs job was to manage financial risk. They failed at this and their companies are at risk because of it. The FDIC takeover means they have unfettered access to at least $250K as of today, so it’s not quite as bad. And the FDIC will unwind SVB’s current assets through their insurance trust or by finding a buyer. The SVB stock and bond holders will lose, the depositors will lose much less.
But it makes you wonder how long the C-suite knew this liquidity issue given they had no risk manager for most of last year (also noted in other HN articles).
You can’t seriously tell me that the CFO who is responsible for corporate finance at these SVB customers didn’t realize a business checking or savings account is not fully guaranteed? It’s in every single bank brochure and statement. If that’s that case, they need to suffer the consequences of poor contingency planning.
How can we possibly allow the CFO of these companies to get away with not managing finance risk, no matter how small. That was their only job, to manage finance risk. No business continuity insurance? Lines of credit with other banks? Convertible instruments that could be sold on Monday AM to raise cash? So many other ways a CFO can manage cash and risk but did not.
“Well-reputed bank” is not the same as zero risk money management. Look at the fine print of every one of those business checking accounts and you see there is clearly some risk, including loss of capital if you’re over the $250k limit. Everyone who has a retirement account in money markets at a “well-reputed bank” knows about this risk, so how can we let the CFO slide on finance risk management that was clearly their most important responsibility? Business continuity insurance, lines of credit, investor infusion, etc. Debt sales, etc. There are ways to get around an unexpected cash crunch.
But there’s no excuse for not knowing the risk and expecting a $1M checking account to work like your personal checking account. This was the CFOs job at every one of the companies that is now in a crunch.
It’s simply poor money management by the employer to assume you can toss $1M-$5M in a business checking account and have zero risk. It’s not a personal account and it is clearly over the FDIC limits.
Anyone with $250K net worth knows there is risk here. Even my 80+ mother who is NOT finance savvy knows about this $250k limit and manages her life savings in different money market accounts to limit her exposure.
This is no different. For example, how many business checking accounts are backed by money market funds to get a little interest on them? Clearly states in offerings that rates aren’t guaranteed and you could even lose capital. Same with the $250k FDIC limit - clear risk with zero forethought from these employers of hedging it with lines of credit, payroll/business continuity insurance, etc.
Those are things “slow” companies do, not move fast and break things companies do (sarcasm intended - I have worked in R&D in both types multiple times).
Or, just like when the market tanks, you suck it up and get back 80% of your capital on deposit because you couldn’t foresee a money market checking account could lose capital even though it’s spelled out on EVERY SINGLE statement and offering letter from the bank.
But there is also a risk question that companies are responsible for that I see is glossed over. No, you shouldn’t have to spread your business accounts to limit them to 250k. But you must know it’s not insured above this, just like a money market account is not a guaranteed rate of return or even guaranteed against capital loss.
I’m just spitballing, but for example what was the rate on a “money market” checking at SVB versus other larger national banks? If it was much higher, it immediately indicates higher risk in a business checking account at SVB to get those rates. You can see this way back with the old junk bond / Lincoln Savings fiasco of the 1980s, or with 2008 MBS, or CD accounts in early 2000s.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-f...