3 ms·

> “Privatize the profits”? What are you talking about? The owners of SVB are wiped out The depositors took risks by lending their money to such a risky bank fo

> “Privatize the profits”? What are you talking about? The owners of SVB are wiped out The depositors took risks by lending their money to such a risky bank for better returns in lieu of the risk. It doesnt matter whether SVB gave 0% interest. It provided other amenities, services and opportunities instead - things which other banks could not take the risk to do. Now these banks who played by the rules and the rest of the people and businesses who played it safe, will have to foot the bill for the risk that those depositors took. This literally says "If you are big enough you can take any risk to win big and have the public pay for it if you screw it up". That's something not afforded to a small business owner. So people who say that there is one rule for the ultra rich and another rule for the majority, they are right. Additionally removing the burden of the deposits from SVB will allow it to recover some of its lost asset value. The state took over its liabilities now.

xyzzyz 4y ago
The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank? This is ridiculous. What was the safe, responsible thing to do? Put it in one of the “too big to fail” banks instead, given that those are guaranteed to be bailed out should they encounter difficulties? Assume that the entire banking regulatory system is a sham, that the whole Dodd Frank system of regulators overseeing the books and running stress test is not worth shit, and then what? Pay their employees in crypto? Stuff their cash into a mattress? Please. Let’s not pretend that literally keeping cash in a savings account is irresponsible risk taking.
- noitpmeder 4y ago
  "The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank?" Yes. They noticed other banks would not take their money, but SVB would. There is a reason SVB was willing to take their money while others would not.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank? This is ridiculous Its not ridiculous. Its how the free market works. Its a choice. There were other banks that were compliant with the regulation that !protects! the bank and its depositors. This bank wasn't one of them. People put their money in this bank anyway. It makes little difference if many startups were forced by their VCs to put their money in that bank - they chose to go with those VCs. > What was the safe, responsible thing to do? Put it in one of the “too big to fail” banks instead, given that those are guaranteed to be bailed out should they encounter difficulties? The first thing to do was to put their money in banks that have not lobbied for exemption from the regulations that protect the bank and its depositors' money from exactly what is happening right now. The second thing would be to put it in multiple banks that are not exempt from that regulation to spread around the risk. The third thing would be to spread the risk around many investment tools and banks. It turns out that there ARE startups that did precisely that, and they were not affected by the SVB thing in the slightest manner. > Let’s not pretend that literally keeping cash in a savings account is irresponsible risk taking. It is unless it is a state run bank, period. This is the free market, and if the organization that you are putting your money into is a private organization, you are simply taking a risk. If that does not sound good, then it means that all the rhetoric about free market vs government should be revised.

xyzzyz 4y ago

The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank? This is ridiculous. What was the safe, responsible thing to do? Put it in one of the “too big to fail” banks instead, given that those are guaranteed to be bailed out should they encounter difficulties? Assume that the entire banking regulatory system is a sham, that the whole Dodd Frank system of regulators overseeing the books and running stress test is not worth shit, and then what? Pay their employees in crypto? Stuff their cash into a mattress? Please. Let’s not pretend that literally keeping cash in a savings account is irresponsible risk taking.

noitpmeder 4y ago
"The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank?" Yes. They noticed other banks would not take their money, but SVB would. There is a reason SVB was willing to take their money while others would not.
unity1001 4y ago
> The depositors “took risks” by literally keeping their cash in a bank? This is ridiculous Its not ridiculous. Its how the free market works. Its a choice. There were other banks that were compliant with the regulation that !protects! the bank and its depositors. This bank wasn't one of them. People put their money in this bank anyway. It makes little difference if many startups were forced by their VCs to put their money in that bank - they chose to go with those VCs. > What was the safe, responsible thing to do? Put it in one of the “too big to fail” banks instead, given that those are guaranteed to be bailed out should they encounter difficulties? The first thing to do was to put their money in banks that have not lobbied for exemption from the regulations that protect the bank and its depositors' money from exactly what is happening right now. The second thing would be to put it in multiple banks that are not exempt from that regulation to spread around the risk. The third thing would be to spread the risk around many investment tools and banks. It turns out that there ARE startups that did precisely that, and they were not affected by the SVB thing in the slightest manner. > Let’s not pretend that literally keeping cash in a savings account is irresponsible risk taking. It is unless it is a state run bank, period. This is the free market, and if the organization that you are putting your money into is a private organization, you are simply taking a risk. If that does not sound good, then it means that all the rhetoric about free market vs government should be revised.