7 ms·

Y Combinator calls on Congress to act on SVB collapse

19 points by donsupreme 4y ago

tomato_123 4y ago
Totally absurd justification for a bailout coming from the people who will most benefit. When airlines go bankrupt they don't burn the planes. Someone else finances them at a discount. Same thing here: if you have a good idea, a good business model, good people, someone will fund you. Sure, the startup's legal entity may dissolve and the equity holder wiped out, but everything else survives. The guys at the helm here are making every apocalyptic argument they can think of. No more innovation. China will win. Think of the workers' mortgages. It's all so that they, careless VCs, can get a taxpayer bailout. Also, "We are not asking for a bank bailout." No, you are asking for a direct bailout to you. If you really think some rank and file programmer is going to suffer for an extended period of time (he/she won't, but just for the sake of argument), then let the Federal Government cut them an unemployment check directly. But any investor, in anything, who loses due to this: suck it up, it's your job to hold the bag.
- tiahura 4y ago
  I wouldn’t get too aggravated, there’s 0 chance of a bailout.
  - muzz 4y ago
    This makes Tan's/YC's histrionics all the more puzzling
bediger4000 4y ago
No atheists in foxholes, and no libertarians during bank runs.
- rnk 4y ago
  Amusing but sad that libertarians obviously want the government to save them when it costs them something.
  - muzz 4y ago
    Their supposed viewpoint was really just a lie of convenience
cocacola1 4y ago
This seems like a distinction without a difference with regards to a "bailout". The definition I found on Google for bailout is is "an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse." Which seems to be the ask. So the depositors are made whole. The companies survive and are able to provide an ROI to investors. And maybe we'll get a committee to discuss the possibility of one day creating legislation to prevent this problem in the future (until SVB 2.0 lobbies against said regulation once the risk of it happening is at hand).
- MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
  The distinction they're making is that in a bailout the money would go to SVB in order for it to continue operation. They don't care if SVB goes out of business, they want the government to give the money directly to them. I agree, a distinction without a difference.
  - muzz 4y ago
    It looks like AT LEAST 80-90% of the deposits will be returned, possibly 100% Truly strange why they are lobbying so hard for government bailouts of the remaining portion, when there might end up being no remaining portion.

19 points by donsupreme 4y ago

Totally absurd justification for a bailout coming from the people who will most benefit. When airlines go bankrupt they don't burn the planes. Someone else finances them at a discount. Same thing here: if you have a good idea, a good business model, good people, someone will fund you. Sure, the startup's legal entity may dissolve and the equity holder wiped out, but everything else survives. The guys at the helm here are making every apocalyptic argument they can think of. No more innovation. China will win. Think of the workers' mortgages. It's all so that they, careless VCs, can get a taxpayer bailout. Also, "We are not asking for a bank bailout." No, you are asking for a direct bailout to you. If you really think some rank and file programmer is going to suffer for an extended period of time (he/she won't, but just for the sake of argument), then let the Federal Government cut them an unemployment check directly. But any investor, in anything, who loses due to this: suck it up, it's your job to hold the bag.

tiahura 4y ago
I wouldn’t get too aggravated, there’s 0 chance of a bailout.
- muzz 4y ago
  This makes Tan's/YC's histrionics all the more puzzling

bediger4000 4y ago

No atheists in foxholes, and no libertarians during bank runs.

rnk 4y ago
Amusing but sad that libertarians obviously want the government to save them when it costs them something.
- muzz 4y ago
  Their supposed viewpoint was really just a lie of convenience

cocacola1 4y ago

This seems like a distinction without a difference with regards to a "bailout". The definition I found on Google for bailout is is "an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse." Which seems to be the ask. So the depositors are made whole. The companies survive and are able to provide an ROI to investors. And maybe we'll get a committee to discuss the possibility of one day creating legislation to prevent this problem in the future (until SVB 2.0 lobbies against said regulation once the risk of it happening is at hand).

MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
The distinction they're making is that in a bailout the money would go to SVB in order for it to continue operation. They don't care if SVB goes out of business, they want the government to give the money directly to them. I agree, a distinction without a difference.
- muzz 4y ago
  It looks like AT LEAST 80-90% of the deposits will be returned, possibly 100% Truly strange why they are lobbying so hard for government bailouts of the remaining portion, when there might end up being no remaining portion.