2 ms·
I really really doubt that. The author assumes that the assets behind SVB are unsalvageable - which doesn't appear to be the problem, it seems like its just th
by olliej 4y ago
I really really doubt that.
The author assumes that the assets behind SVB are unsalvageable - which doesn't appear to be the problem, it seems like its just the quintessential liquidity crunch that runs cause: there's plenty of assets they just can't be converted to cash fast enough to meet obligations. Because of that I'm sure some larger bank will be down for buying those assets at a steep discount.
The author also assumes that in the event that a payroll company has been given money but is unable to pass it on to employees that the employer will magically no longer have any money. Also, even if you do lay them off those employees are entitled to the pay checks the author seems to think are lost forever, so laying them off just destroys the company it doesn't actually do anything. The payroll companies themselves may have a rockier time if a significant part of their balance sheet is now cash tied up in SVB that they owe to either employees or the employer (as numerous posts have employers just paying their staff directly rather than deal with this). At least one of the larger payroll companies has already arranged payment with Morgan/Chase to have people paid only a day or so late and has said they'll cover overdraft fees or similar.
What utter nonsense.