5 ms·

I understand what you mean here. I don't think it's people having no empathy for employees (or even founders) who did not act in bad faith. We are (or were) in

I understand what you mean here. I don't think it's people having no empathy for employees (or even founders) who did not act in bad faith. We are (or were) in a situation where the entire ecosystem blew up because VCs and funds inadvertently incited a bank run. Backstopping capital so payroll can be made obvoiusly helps out employees, founders, and companies alot, but the ones that benefit the most financially on an absolute basis are these investors. It just feels a bit disingenous to hear an argument that "this small company out of the Midwest needs to make payroll" (which is an example I just made up, any relation to real companies are entire coincidental), while ignoring the argument that "If the government doesn't backstop this my $3B fund goes to $0". In summary I have a lot of sympathy for employees, and even founders who were held to terms that were completed standard and seemed reasonable at the time. I have less empathy for the group that are (were) vocally calling for bail-outs and trying to incite further panic in an effort to protect their own investments. Edit: switch the example to avoid inadvertently matching a real life example way too closely.

jtr1 4y ago
As an employee of an otherwise decent company who happened to bank with SVB, I was mainly resentful of being stuck in the same boat as the latter group
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Ugh yeah, I honestly find it really demotivating that I share an industry with these people. Unbelievably, they have managed to be even more insufferably disgusting than the bankers during the GFC. I would have never believed it possible.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Banking shouldn’t be an investment. The entire economy runs on the idea that banks are fundamentally secure. This is why banks are regulated, and why deposit insurance exists. The extension of it past $250,000 is very good
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Yeah but the problem is that nobody wrote that down beforehand. It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies. It's good to have clear rules written down ahead of time.
  - jasd 4y ago
    Yes, people make mistakes and then learn from them. Sometimes not every scenario can be anticipated. In this instance a bunch of startups got caught in this mess and 250k won't be enough for them to survive/meet their employees' payroll. I appreciate the govt stepping in and hopefully rewriting the rules based on the learnings.
  - surfpel 4y ago
    > It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies Complicated, fragile emergencies are precisely the time to consider exceptions to hard rules. After all, if all our rules were perfect, we wouldn’t have an emergency to begin with.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      No, because those exceptions become the new rule, and fragile emergencies are a bad time to think through what the new rule should be. "Hard cases make bad law." I feel the need to say this in every comment because I don't expect people to read my other comments, but I do support what was done here, assuming the private buyer solution was tried and it failed, I just also think it's bad that things are run this way.
      - surfpel 4y ago
        > No, because those exceptions become the new rule I disagree that this necessarily sets the new rule. Sure, sometimes it creates new precedents, but the necessity for an exception should go on to inform new hard set rules to prevent the necessity for exceptions in the first place. In this case, a return to a more regulated banking sector, hopefully. This is not dissimilar from highly agile work environments that require frequent process changes to achieve the ultimate goal.
dkasper 4y ago
hilariously "15 person company run by a Mom out of ohio" was literally one of the tweets going around trying to get empathy for people who had money at svb https://twitter.com/lcmichaelides/status/1634654751479541760 https://twitter.com/lcmichaelides/status/1634654751479541760
- nrmitchi 4y ago
  Oh damn, maybe that’s why it came to mind. I updated the comment because referencing an explicit example was *not* my intent.
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  I looked into her company. It seems to be some sort of personal assistant service for $600/mo, $1500/quarter, or $5,900/year. And there's a page trying to convince employers to get the service for their employees so that they can be more productive at work. Small company from Ohio? Sure. But their target demographic is definitely not small town Ohioans.
- peanuty1 4y ago
  She and her husband are both Duke MBAs and ex-McKinsey.

jtr1 4y ago

As an employee of an otherwise decent company who happened to bank with SVB, I was mainly resentful of being stuck in the same boat as the latter group

sanderjd 4y ago
Ugh yeah, I honestly find it really demotivating that I share an industry with these people. Unbelievably, they have managed to be even more insufferably disgusting than the bankers during the GFC. I would have never believed it possible.

FormerBandmate 4y ago

Banking shouldn’t be an investment. The entire economy runs on the idea that banks are fundamentally secure. This is why banks are regulated, and why deposit insurance exists. The extension of it past $250,000 is very good

sanderjd 4y ago
Yeah but the problem is that nobody wrote that down beforehand. It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies. It's good to have clear rules written down ahead of time.
- jasd 4y ago
  Yes, people make mistakes and then learn from them. Sometimes not every scenario can be anticipated. In this instance a bunch of startups got caught in this mess and 250k won't be enough for them to survive/meet their employees' payroll. I appreciate the govt stepping in and hopefully rewriting the rules based on the learnings.
- surfpel 4y ago
  > It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies Complicated, fragile emergencies are precisely the time to consider exceptions to hard rules. After all, if all our rules were perfect, we wouldn’t have an emergency to begin with.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    No, because those exceptions become the new rule, and fragile emergencies are a bad time to think through what the new rule should be. "Hard cases make bad law." I feel the need to say this in every comment because I don't expect people to read my other comments, but I do support what was done here, assuming the private buyer solution was tried and it failed, I just also think it's bad that things are run this way.
    - surfpel 4y ago
      > No, because those exceptions become the new rule I disagree that this necessarily sets the new rule. Sure, sometimes it creates new precedents, but the necessity for an exception should go on to inform new hard set rules to prevent the necessity for exceptions in the first place. In this case, a return to a more regulated banking sector, hopefully. This is not dissimilar from highly agile work environments that require frequent process changes to achieve the ultimate goal.

dkasper 4y ago

hilariously "15 person company run by a Mom out of ohio" was literally one of the tweets going around trying to get empathy for people who had money at svb https://twitter.com/lcmichaelides/status/1634654751479541760 https://twitter.com/lcmichaelides/status/1634654751479541760

nrmitchi 4y ago
Oh damn, maybe that’s why it came to mind. I updated the comment because referencing an explicit example was *not* my intent.
LambdaComplex 4y ago
I looked into her company. It seems to be some sort of personal assistant service for $600/mo, $1500/quarter, or $5,900/year. And there's a page trying to convince employers to get the service for their employees so that they can be more productive at work. Small company from Ohio? Sure. But their target demographic is definitely not small town Ohioans.
peanuty1 4y ago
She and her husband are both Duke MBAs and ex-McKinsey.