8 ms·

They should claw back SVB CEO pay and televise the moment the funds move. Show the CEOs number going down and some other public number going up. Bonus points if

They should claw back SVB CEO pay and televise the moment the funds move. Show the CEOs number going down and some other public number going up. Bonus points if his face is televised at that moment at well That's all that's really necessary in terms of handling moral hazard and public perception that this is yet another bailout. Let ppl see the CEO suffer and they will be fine with having taxes foot the bailout bill. It's sad but a spectacle is necessary here.

mgraczyk 4y ago
Do you think software engineers who write bugs should also be publicly humiliated? Should your bonus be clawed back if you tech lead a project that ends up failing because of bugs?
- cowl 4y ago
  If your bug ends up risking the economy of the country definitly yes. But Public Humiliation is not the solution because if it worked we ould not have the same executives who failed LB fail yet another Bank. There should be Legal conseguences for this type of mismanagement.
- tome 4y ago
  If I put at risk the financial stability of the United States, then yes.
- pishpash 4y ago
  It's a plausible position to take.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Do you think doctors should be responsible for patient deaths? What of they killed the patient out of negligence, and they were drunk on the job? These people can be high, drunk and negligent simultaneouslyHl, and they are still untouchable.
- cjbprime 4y ago
  In the other professions which use the title "engineer", all of these are commonplace.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- acdha 4y ago
  Potentially, yes. Something with real-world catastrophic consequences should require you to prove you weren’t being negligent. In this case, it feels like the equivalent of running for a while knowing that your QA team was empty and ignoring failing tests for a year.
  - mgraczyk 4y ago
    Fortunately our criminal justice systems presumes innocence
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      Whether or not he committed fraud, I think most people are tired of seeing bank (and tech) executives cause real-world harm and make out like bandits. Civil forfeiture is used against poor people all the time for far, far less obvious issues than this one.
      - mgraczyk 4y ago
        As someone who has been on the other side of many of these controversies, I know from experience that the popular narrative is generally wrong and fueled by anger and vengeance rather than sense or justice. I don't have any insider knowledge in this case but the discourse reminds me a lot of times I've seen well intentioned people make good decisions that anyone else would have made in the same position, then the mob viciously demands blood when something goes wrong. Civil forfeiture isn't a means to punish people for wrongdoing, and neither should we try to retroactively change the rules to try to punish people who you believe wronged you.
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        > Civil forfeiture isn't a means to punish people for wrongdoing Could have fooled me. Thing is, when you are the CEO and you make the big paycheck, being a target for the mob is part of the job. 1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed. They can't control the weather, but it was someone's responsibility to make sure there was enough food stored. The common sentiment is that the people who caused the failure should not be allowed to keep the money they made driving the ship ashore. Nobody is forced to be a CEO with million-dollar comp. It isn't some travesty of justice when they are held accountable.
Mistletoe 4y ago
The CEO cashed out $3.6 million in stock two weeks ago.
- suddenclarity 4y ago
  A planned sale that was filed and broadcasted back in January.
batmaniam 4y ago
Executives are shameless. They'll lie to your face, backstab you to get more funds for their department over yours, and whatever else to get ahead for themselves. And they'll do it smiling all the way because they know they still win with their bags of cash payouts despite being "humiliated". The only way people like that will learn is by sending them to prison. Their actions were so egregious, so completely in disregard for our financial system, that it's impossible to not have done any of that without intent. I'm sure if they turned over all electronic and paper documentation, there's gonna be a written strategy somewhere directing all this.
nateburke 4y ago
I think that there are two types of trust at stake here: 1. Trust that bank deposits won't disappear. 2. Trust that the financial system is fair. A bailout sacrifices 2 for 1. Letting SVB fail sacrifices 1 for 2. My proposal is for a bailout, while doing the bare minimum necessary to prevent a backlash. Remember that the death penalty still gets the thumbs-up from voters in many places in America. It's foolish to think that the people who distrust Silicon Valley will be able to "move past this" in a mature, dispassionate way, given the namesake of the bank.

mgraczyk 4y ago

Do you think software engineers who write bugs should also be publicly humiliated? Should your bonus be clawed back if you tech lead a project that ends up failing because of bugs?

cowl 4y ago
If your bug ends up risking the economy of the country definitly yes. But Public Humiliation is not the solution because if it worked we ould not have the same executives who failed LB fail yet another Bank. There should be Legal conseguences for this type of mismanagement.
tome 4y ago
If I put at risk the financial stability of the United States, then yes.
pishpash 4y ago
It's a plausible position to take.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Do you think doctors should be responsible for patient deaths? What of they killed the patient out of negligence, and they were drunk on the job? These people can be high, drunk and negligent simultaneouslyHl, and they are still untouchable.
cjbprime 4y ago
In the other professions which use the title "engineer", all of these are commonplace.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
acdha 4y ago
Potentially, yes. Something with real-world catastrophic consequences should require you to prove you weren’t being negligent. In this case, it feels like the equivalent of running for a while knowing that your QA team was empty and ignoring failing tests for a year.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  Fortunately our criminal justice systems presumes innocence
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Whether or not he committed fraud, I think most people are tired of seeing bank (and tech) executives cause real-world harm and make out like bandits. Civil forfeiture is used against poor people all the time for far, far less obvious issues than this one.
    - mgraczyk 4y ago
      As someone who has been on the other side of many of these controversies, I know from experience that the popular narrative is generally wrong and fueled by anger and vengeance rather than sense or justice. I don't have any insider knowledge in this case but the discourse reminds me a lot of times I've seen well intentioned people make good decisions that anyone else would have made in the same position, then the mob viciously demands blood when something goes wrong. Civil forfeiture isn't a means to punish people for wrongdoing, and neither should we try to retroactively change the rules to try to punish people who you believe wronged you.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        > Civil forfeiture isn't a means to punish people for wrongdoing Could have fooled me. Thing is, when you are the CEO and you make the big paycheck, being a target for the mob is part of the job. 1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed. They can't control the weather, but it was someone's responsibility to make sure there was enough food stored. The common sentiment is that the people who caused the failure should not be allowed to keep the money they made driving the ship ashore. Nobody is forced to be a CEO with million-dollar comp. It isn't some travesty of justice when they are held accountable.

Mistletoe 4y ago

The CEO cashed out $3.6 million in stock two weeks ago.

suddenclarity 4y ago
A planned sale that was filed and broadcasted back in January.

batmaniam 4y ago

Executives are shameless. They'll lie to your face, backstab you to get more funds for their department over yours, and whatever else to get ahead for themselves. And they'll do it smiling all the way because they know they still win with their bags of cash payouts despite being "humiliated". The only way people like that will learn is by sending them to prison. Their actions were so egregious, so completely in disregard for our financial system, that it's impossible to not have done any of that without intent. I'm sure if they turned over all electronic and paper documentation, there's gonna be a written strategy somewhere directing all this.

nateburke 4y ago

I think that there are two types of trust at stake here: 1. Trust that bank deposits won't disappear. 2. Trust that the financial system is fair. A bailout sacrifices 2 for 1. Letting SVB fail sacrifices 1 for 2. My proposal is for a bailout, while doing the bare minimum necessary to prevent a backlash. Remember that the death penalty still gets the thumbs-up from voters in many places in America. It's foolish to think that the people who distrust Silicon Valley will be able to "move past this" in a mature, dispassionate way, given the namesake of the bank.