3 ms·

I'm happy for them, I guess. Of course I could be wrong, but given the evidence I don't think I will be. More power to the VCs and everyone else if they get the

• sithlord 4y ago
  would be interested in knowing if the us gov just buys the assets, since at the end of the day, (longer term) there seems to be a pretty good guarantee of getting it all back (minus time value of money)
  • mixdup 4y ago
    I don't think that's likely. Other stats I've seen indicate over the past decade or two, uninsured depositors have been paid something like 75 cents on the dollar on their uninsured accounts. This would indicate the FDIC, if they don't find someone to buy the bank and make everyone whole, will liquidate the assets and pay out the accounts over a pretty short term
    • pishpash 4y ago
      That was before QE. What's some bonds to the Fed when they are the kind it would buy for its own balance sheet anyway? The issue is, one, they are in QT right now; two, buying isn't enough, as these are perfectly marketable securities, just that they are worth less than face value, so the Fed or anyone buying them at market price doesn't help. You actually need someone to eat the loss by paying face value.
  • jlmorton 4y ago
    I don't think this is within the existing authority of the FDIC, or Federal Reserve to do. I'm not an expert, so happy to be corrected, but given where things are currently -- with SBV closed, assets transferred to the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara -- I believe this would take an act of Congress. And I sincerely doubt there is appetite in Congress for a bank bailout for Big Tech.
    • dokein 4y ago
      I appreciate that's perhaps how it'll be viewed, but let's be clear here: "big tech" is not being bailed out. Apple, Google, Meta, etc. do not have a substantial portion of their cash in SVB. Sequoia, Andreesen, etc. do not have a substantial portion of their fund in SVB (most of it is kept by their LPs until actually used). Investors of SVB are not being bailed out -- shareholders exit last (as they should). The people being "bailed out" are the owners and employees of small businesses and startups that, just by nature of having a deposit as SVB, unconsciously acted as a creditor to an institution that had an 'A' credit rating by Moody's, a 'Buy' rating by JPM, and had passed whatever monitoring and risk tolerance requirements put in place by the Fed.
      • jlmorton 4y ago
        Completely agree, that part of my comment was only meant to speak to the political environment.
• pishpash 4y ago
  The known portfolio isn't toxic with more time. It's just Treasury bonds and MBS. In fact they are rising in price because of SVB. However, the suspected problem is the unpublicized part of the portfolio. Some here say there are funny, poorly collateralized loans in there to the same people who made deposits there. It might turn out to be out-and-out fraud that looks like clever financial engineering.
  • beberlei 4y ago
    Thats not what parent is saying. They are saying todays value of the known portfolio is not what is on the books due to interest and risk discounting the future value at which the bonds mature. Either you sell everything now at the discounted value, leading to loss in deposits. Or you wait 10 years and pay everyone back their deposit then. Given current inflation a dollar now is only worth 50 cent in 10 years.
  • mixdup 4y ago
    Sure, the "known" portion may not be getting more toxic, but an acquirer has to take the whole thing. The "known" and the "unknown" part you're talking about. As it goes on, people are going to increasingly wonder why no one has stepped in to buy what would otherwise be a pretty lucrative business It's because there's a lot more bad assets there than people know or acknowledge, and most of the deposits (and therefore customers) are gone. And as time ticks on, that continues to get worse, even if it's just a perception of it getting worse that perception becomes reality