4 ms·

Another proof how smart this guy is ? Or for those who hate him, he might be te reason of its collapse

fullshark 4y ago
It's both, also it's a sign of how this industry is full of followers, once word got out Thiel fled the bank the run started and it was over within what 30 hours?
kypro 4y ago
For the record I like Thiel but I don't think it's controversial to say that he was a large catalyst in SVBs demise. It was probably also a smart move to remove the funds, but I'm not sure it was sensible for someone with his level of influence to encourage a bank run. Even if you believe a bank run is likely telling people to withdrawal their funds doesn't solve the problem that some people will be too late. If you want to help you should try to ease nerves if anything.
- toiletfuneral 4y ago
  [dead]
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >If you want to help you should try to ease nerves if anything. Why would Thiel want to "help"? The bank literally put customer's deposits at risk.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    There's a difference between "at risk" and doomed and Thiel at the least accelerated things to the latter. Something probably could have been worked out with a little bit of cooperation instead of screaming fire, but I think he likes chaos and this helps his startups by damaging competitors. I'm sure we'll find out a lot more in the future about the timing of things and whether he was really reacting to urgent problems or just creating them.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ayewo 4y ago
      Not sure I follow. SVB engaged in risky behavior by taking decisions that ultimately put customer deposits at risk. If they were genuinely solvent, their business would have been completely impervious to all sorts of rumours (whether true or false).
- colechristensen 4y ago
  No, this wasn’t just a liquidity problem, the bank was insolvent. The bank run was a result not a cause.
chank 4y ago
Or did he have insider information that allowed him to act early?
- mannerheim 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/1615826088038473733 https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/161582608803847373...
  - windexh8er 4y ago
    There is a lot of concern around SVB within the 90 days leading up to the event. But the timing is interesting. The day before? And the CEO dumping stock? The difference here is likely insider information. It's obvious Mr. Thiel is well connected and so it's not likely he made this decision uniformed beyond the normal flow of chatter. The question is if he was tipped off and had insider information is that even illegal in this context?
    - gruez 4y ago
      >And the CEO dumping stock? Source? I feel like every time this gets brought up, it turns out that it was part of a rule 10b5-1 sale (ie. it was scheduled months/years in advance), because if you actually thought the company was going to go under pretty soon, dumping stock will look so suspicious.
      - windexh8er 4y ago
        That's, ultimately, a loophole many CEOs use. They have to preschedule the sale of stock so it's not insider trading. However they can cancel those trades. At least that's how it was the last time I checked. I was told this by a large, prominent, network security organization CEO years ago. Basically, from this [0] article: "This general prohibition addresses a significant loophole in the current Rule 10b5-1, which permits insiders to adopt multiple trading plans and selectively cancel certain plans based on material nonpublic information." So it looks like 10b5-1 was supposed to change. But I'm not aware that it did. Regardless 10b5-1 was just a cover so they couldn't be prosecuted for insider trading as it was operating. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/secs-run-revamping-rule-10b5-1-deter-insider-trading-2023-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/secs-run-revampi...
MiscIdeaMaker99 4y ago
I think "lucky" is the better word here. He was lucky because he was able to get all of his money out of the bank while he could. Maybe he knew something was happening before others? Maybe he was just able to move faster? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regardless, he definitely helped contribute to its collapse, as well as everyone else who took their money out of the bank during the run. To what degree is Peter Thiel responsible? I don't know and I don't think it really matters.
- oatmeal1 4y ago
  I'm guessing he has the contacts to be ahead on things like this. "Lucky" to have worked at Paypal to get him where he is.
  - MiscIdeaMaker99 4y ago
    I'm sure there will be some good books coming out about it in the next couple of years that will shed light on what actually happened.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Maybe he pays attention or can afford to pay people to pay attention? There were public discussions about the bank's issues months ago: https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/1615826088038473733 https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/161582608803847373...
- seydor 4y ago
  Thiel is lucky a lot

It's both, also it's a sign of how this industry is full of followers, once word got out Thiel fled the bank the run started and it was over within what 30 hours?

kypro 4y ago

For the record I like Thiel but I don't think it's controversial to say that he was a large catalyst in SVBs demise. It was probably also a smart move to remove the funds, but I'm not sure it was sensible for someone with his level of influence to encourage a bank run. Even if you believe a bank run is likely telling people to withdrawal their funds doesn't solve the problem that some people will be too late. If you want to help you should try to ease nerves if anything.

toiletfuneral 4y ago
[dead]
itsoktocry 4y ago
>If you want to help you should try to ease nerves if anything. Why would Thiel want to "help"? The bank literally put customer's deposits at risk.
- sidibe 4y ago
  There's a difference between "at risk" and doomed and Thiel at the least accelerated things to the latter. Something probably could have been worked out with a little bit of cooperation instead of screaming fire, but I think he likes chaos and this helps his startups by damaging competitors. I'm sure we'll find out a lot more in the future about the timing of things and whether he was really reacting to urgent problems or just creating them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ayewo 4y ago
    Not sure I follow. SVB engaged in risky behavior by taking decisions that ultimately put customer deposits at risk. If they were genuinely solvent, their business would have been completely impervious to all sorts of rumours (whether true or false).
colechristensen 4y ago
No, this wasn’t just a liquidity problem, the bank was insolvent. The bank run was a result not a cause.

chank 4y ago

Or did he have insider information that allowed him to act early?

mannerheim 4y ago
https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/1615826088038473733 https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/161582608803847373...
- windexh8er 4y ago
  There is a lot of concern around SVB within the 90 days leading up to the event. But the timing is interesting. The day before? And the CEO dumping stock? The difference here is likely insider information. It's obvious Mr. Thiel is well connected and so it's not likely he made this decision uniformed beyond the normal flow of chatter. The question is if he was tipped off and had insider information is that even illegal in this context?
  - gruez 4y ago
    >And the CEO dumping stock? Source? I feel like every time this gets brought up, it turns out that it was part of a rule 10b5-1 sale (ie. it was scheduled months/years in advance), because if you actually thought the company was going to go under pretty soon, dumping stock will look so suspicious.
    - windexh8er 4y ago
      That's, ultimately, a loophole many CEOs use. They have to preschedule the sale of stock so it's not insider trading. However they can cancel those trades. At least that's how it was the last time I checked. I was told this by a large, prominent, network security organization CEO years ago. Basically, from this [0] article: "This general prohibition addresses a significant loophole in the current Rule 10b5-1, which permits insiders to adopt multiple trading plans and selectively cancel certain plans based on material nonpublic information." So it looks like 10b5-1 was supposed to change. But I'm not aware that it did. Regardless 10b5-1 was just a cover so they couldn't be prosecuted for insider trading as it was operating. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/secs-run-revamping-rule-10b5-1-deter-insider-trading-2023-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/secs-run-revampi...

MiscIdeaMaker99 4y ago

I think "lucky" is the better word here. He was lucky because he was able to get all of his money out of the bank while he could. Maybe he knew something was happening before others? Maybe he was just able to move faster? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regardless, he definitely helped contribute to its collapse, as well as everyone else who took their money out of the bank during the run. To what degree is Peter Thiel responsible? I don't know and I don't think it really matters.

oatmeal1 4y ago
I'm guessing he has the contacts to be ahead on things like this. "Lucky" to have worked at Paypal to get him where he is.
- MiscIdeaMaker99 4y ago
  I'm sure there will be some good books coming out about it in the next couple of years that will shed light on what actually happened.
macinjosh 4y ago
Maybe he pays attention or can afford to pay people to pay attention? There were public discussions about the bank's issues months ago: https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/1615826088038473733 https://twitter.com/RagingVentures/status/161582608803847373...
seydor 4y ago
Thiel is lucky a lot