5 ms·
The subtext here is David Sacks and his friends are investors in Silicon Valley companies. Lots of Silicon Valley companies are depositors of SVB and could lose
by fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
The subtext here is David Sacks and his friends are investors in Silicon Valley companies. Lots of Silicon Valley companies are depositors of SVB and could lose money if there is a haircut on assets over $250k, or at least will lose temporary access to their cash. David Sacks wants SVB to be bailed out by a major bank so those deposits are made good. He’s talking about a wider economic impact because that’s an argument that such a bailout is necessary for the country, not just local VCs.
- wpietri 4y agoThe especially funny thing to me is that some VCs were telling their portfolio companies to get their money out of SVP first thing this morning. So Sacks is a VC asking for a bailout on a bank run triggered by VCs. Cry me a river. It's nice that he took time from his busy schedule decimating Twitter to share his views. But in my opinion VCs can't simultaneously claim to be such financial geniuses that they deserve lower taxes (via the carried interest loophole) but such babes in the woods that they need Uncle Sam to bail them out for a bad financial decision. Pick a lane, buddy.
- malermeister 4y ago[flagged]
- practice9 4y ago> friends Chamath?
- throwawayfky 4y ago[flagged]
- ohashi 4y agoSo gambler wants house to cover his losses because his friends and him won't be able to continue gamble if they lose.
- cplusplusfellow 4y agoI don’t understand the disgust I’m reading for VCs and startups. Bailing out the bank doesn’t mean we let the bank CEO get richer off this transaction (like we did in 2008). It means the startup companies making payroll are going to survive and continue building the future of technology and healthcare. What am I missing?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 4y agoIt means that the bank was gambling, lost, and wants to externalize those losses onto the rest of us who weren't gambling.
- worik 4y agoYes An alternative is to bankrupt the partners, cancel the shares, then take action for depositors That is what did not happen in 2008
- boeingUH60 4y agoThis is exactly what's happening here. Equity investors have lost their shirts. The government protection is only for depositors.
- worik 4y agoI hope so. But we have not seen that yet. Have the shares been canceled? Are the partners bankrupted? Too soon to tell. Remember AIG
- drstewart 4y agoFunny that in threads about crypto companies failing everyone cries about "this is why we have regulations and safety valves in the financial industry!" but now when these are in force people cry about the safety valves and regulations existing, and how the companies should just be allowed to fail
- throwawayfky 4y agoHe and his buddies were talking about playing gambling and donating earnings. I saw it as a promotion for gambling. Listening to them talk about it made me sick Americans love for gamlbing and alcoholism is beyond my comprehension. Like all bad things it's very bad in the long run