3 ms·
> not because they took risky bets on startups. SVB regularly provides credit to risky startups, which is why they existed in the first place (because other ba
by mbesto 4y ago
> not because they took risky bets on startups.
SVB regularly provides credit to risky startups, which is why they existed in the first place (because other banks wouldn't lend at those rates). So, yes, they sorta did place risky bets on startups.
- lambic2 4y agoSource for this? All evidence show that their failure at least started with them owning a lot of "safe" bonds, whose value declined with increasing fed rates.
- mbesto 4y agohttps://www.svb.com/landing-pages/venture-debt https://www.svb.com/landing-pages/venture-debt
- mbesto 4y agoTo elaborate further with hard numbers. See #2: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rich-falk-wallace_silicon-valley-bank-unit-economics-clarify-activity-7040705652658208768-GO00/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rich-falk-wallace_silicon-val... #1: Mortgage backed securities: $82B (83% residential) #2: Direct loans: $74B (55% short term loans to VCs & PE) #3: Liquid assets: $55B