3 ms·
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 remov
by 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 agoThere'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 agoNot 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 agoNo, this wasn’t just a liquidity problem, the bank was insolvent. The bank run was a result not a cause.