3 ms·

I am not a lawyer but from my shallow read-through I understood that bankers bought risky bonds trying to increase their returns on new deposits. They tried to

I am not a lawyer but from my shallow read-through I understood that bankers bought risky bonds trying to increase their returns on new deposits. They tried to maximize profits of the bank at the expense of their customers, prioritizing bank’s profit over customers’ interests. We can argue all day about intentionality but the damage is clear and the source of the damage as well (SVB managers). It’s not a fluke or hiccup or a typo, it’s someone’s decisions that had devastating consequences. If a factory manager made some decisions that endangered livelyhoods of thousands of customers they’d be in jail I suppose? Or a construction company bought materials that cost less but are at risk of deteriorating ?

jaclaz 4y ago
From what I have read about the matter (and from my little understanding) nothing of that sort happened. They were - for some reason - in need of some cash and they sold some bonds they had at a lower price than what they had bought them, losing some 2 billions (if I recall exactly the amount) which should represent around (again if I recall correctly) between 1.0% and 1.5% of their total deposits. That - again for some reasons - triggered a "bank run" where customers took out (or attempted to take out) some 40+ billions or 20% to 25% of deposits. Any bank, if 1/5th or 1/4th of deposits are withdrawn in the same day, is likely to become insolvent. Now, that they had some issues in the way they communicated with their customers and that they might have better managed the emergency can well be opinated, but at face value it doesn't seem like there is much else. An article that has more details: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/silicon-valley-banks-failure-felt-a-lot-like-gamestop-mania.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/silicon-valley-banks...

jaclaz 4y ago

From what I have read about the matter (and from my little understanding) nothing of that sort happened. They were - for some reason - in need of some cash and they sold some bonds they had at a lower price than what they had bought them, losing some 2 billions (if I recall exactly the amount) which should represent around (again if I recall correctly) between 1.0% and 1.5% of their total deposits. That - again for some reasons - triggered a "bank run" where customers took out (or attempted to take out) some 40+ billions or 20% to 25% of deposits. Any bank, if 1/5th or 1/4th of deposits are withdrawn in the same day, is likely to become insolvent. Now, that they had some issues in the way they communicated with their customers and that they might have better managed the emergency can well be opinated, but at face value it doesn't seem like there is much else. An article that has more details: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/silicon-valley-banks-failure-felt-a-lot-like-gamestop-mania.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/silicon-valley-banks...