4 ms·

> How does that prove any kind of reliability at all? There's no FDIC insurance on any of the deposits. There's no actual regulation or transparency. Its not li

> How does that prove any kind of reliability at all? There's no FDIC insurance on any of the deposits. There's no actual regulation or transparency. Its not like VMFXX or SWVXX where there are requirements to publish their assets on a regular basis, or describe asset flows / liquidity requirements. The point is that these companies with way more financial experience, size, and more reasons to investigate failed to find any warning signs, so these non-profits had very little chance, even if they didn't go with the "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" approach. FTX might have let some auditor from an investor putting in $100M take a look at their books but they'd almost surely tell a non-profit with no leverage that's receiving the money to get lost if they asked.

dragontamer 4y ago
> The point is that these companies with way more financial experience, size, more reasons to investigate failed to find any warning signs I don't think you get the point of Softbank or even Blackrock. When you have $10 Trillion in assets like Blackrock, you _DON'T_ sweat a $300 million investment or even a $2 billion investment here or there. It literally doesn't matter. Its not even a rounding error to you, your company, or your investors. Its barely worth Blackrock's time to seriously look at things like this. That's why we get $Billion sized London Whale mistakes or whatever, because they have so much money to manage the only reasonable way to do it is to hand billions of (management) dollars to executives and give those executives broad leeway to do whatever they want. ------- This kind of mistake is a "Lol, Executive #455 made an error", and that executive is going to be in the hotseat as other executives make fun of him for his FTX mistake at a place like Blackrock. I don't understand where you get this idea that VC companies tightly vet their choices. If anything, the bigger the VC firm, the less they vet something at the $million, or even $billion levels.

dragontamer 4y ago

> The point is that these companies with way more financial experience, size, more reasons to investigate failed to find any warning signs I don't think you get the point of Softbank or even Blackrock. When you have $10 Trillion in assets like Blackrock, you _DON'T_ sweat a $300 million investment or even a $2 billion investment here or there. It literally doesn't matter. Its not even a rounding error to you, your company, or your investors. Its barely worth Blackrock's time to seriously look at things like this. That's why we get $Billion sized London Whale mistakes or whatever, because they have so much money to manage the only reasonable way to do it is to hand billions of (management) dollars to executives and give those executives broad leeway to do whatever they want. ------- This kind of mistake is a "Lol, Executive #455 made an error", and that executive is going to be in the hotseat as other executives make fun of him for his FTX mistake at a place like Blackrock. I don't understand where you get this idea that VC companies tightly vet their choices. If anything, the bigger the VC firm, the less they vet something at the $million, or even $billion levels.