5 ms·

You are in the top 1% and you are asking for a government bailout. Everyone knows that amounts over $250K were not insured. These are not "innocent depositors"

by breck 4y ago

You are in the top 1% and you are asking for a government bailout. Everyone knows that amounts over $250K were not insured. These are not "innocent depositors". A lot of my portfolio companies are affected, but I will not lobby for a government bailout on their behalf. It's not the right thing to do. I 100% agree with you on lobbying for an expedient process, but if these companies have to take a haircut, they have to take a haircut. The strong will survive (and learn a lesson about risk management).

dehrmann 4y ago
> Everyone knows that amounts over $250K were not insured. This is technically true, but I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money. Depositors losing money in bank runs feels like a 1920's problem.
- muzz 4y ago
  Because 2008 was so long ago? What were the CFOs of these companies doing.
  - grugagag 4y ago
    They were counting the days till the next bonus
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    I don't think depositors lost money in 2008. The lessons from 2008 were to look out for risks of an asset class failing and that packaging risky, correlated assets doesn't make them much safer. The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      LOL! Neither "packaging correlated assets doesn't make them magically AAA, so we'll also commit ratings fraud", neither "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts (or simply mismanagement or fraud)" are/were unknowns. These people took risks KNOWINGLY, because they were rewarded handsomely by it. Now and then it rears its ugly face and we're supposed to pay the check? Give me a break.
      - hnfong 4y ago
        I'm struggling to understand how taking the risk of "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts" can reward one handsomely. Is there some way I can make spectacular gains by depositing money in a mismanaged bank?
    - hnfong 4y ago
      > The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown. What? It's only unknown if all you know about financial crises are from 2008. A google search on "borrowing short and lending long" gives this in the first page: http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/banks-borrowing-short-and-lending-long.html http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/banks-borrowing-short-a...
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money Where were the financial advisors for these companies, then? A big part of their job is to strip away "feelings" and talk cold, hard facts.
JohnFen 4y ago
> These are not "innocent depositors". Let's be fair. They were innocent in the sense that the failure wasn't their fault. What they aren't is naive. To the extent that they had deposits exceeding FDIC insurance, they were knowingly taking a risk.

by breck 4y ago

dehrmann 4y ago

> Everyone knows that amounts over $250K were not insured. This is technically true, but I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money. Depositors losing money in bank runs feels like a 1920's problem.

muzz 4y ago
Because 2008 was so long ago? What were the CFOs of these companies doing.
- grugagag 4y ago
  They were counting the days till the next bonus
- dehrmann 4y ago
  I don't think depositors lost money in 2008. The lessons from 2008 were to look out for risks of an asset class failing and that packaging risky, correlated assets doesn't make them much safer. The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    LOL! Neither "packaging correlated assets doesn't make them magically AAA, so we'll also commit ratings fraud", neither "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts (or simply mismanagement or fraud)" are/were unknowns. These people took risks KNOWINGLY, because they were rewarded handsomely by it. Now and then it rears its ugly face and we're supposed to pay the check? Give me a break.
    - hnfong 4y ago
      I'm struggling to understand how taking the risk of "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts" can reward one handsomely. Is there some way I can make spectacular gains by depositing money in a mismanaged bank?
  - hnfong 4y ago
    > The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown. What? It's only unknown if all you know about financial crises are from 2008. A google search on "borrowing short and lending long" gives this in the first page: http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/banks-borrowing-short-and-lending-long.html http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/banks-borrowing-short-a...
JohnFen 4y ago
> I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money Where were the financial advisors for these companies, then? A big part of their job is to strip away "feelings" and talk cold, hard facts.

JohnFen 4y ago

> These are not "innocent depositors". Let's be fair. They were innocent in the sense that the failure wasn't their fault. What they aren't is naive. To the extent that they had deposits exceeding FDIC insurance, they were knowingly taking a risk.