3 ms·

Too bad HSBC USA didn't take the US arm. HSBC have been exiting the US market for a while and more competition is always better.

dmix 4y ago
We don't know who bought SVB yet it will likely be announced tomorrow (EST/PST timezone) probably. The US gov announcing the full confidence of deposits wasn't merely an altruistic move, they likely had a buyer at the time of announcement and maybe a secondary commitment to support the mortgage debt which caused the whole thing.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  You may be right, but the news coverage I've seen implies that the full backstop of all deposits regardless of size was announced because there is no buyer for SVB. Basically, there just wasn't enough time for buyers to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Ah that's very possible. It makes sense their main objective was calming the market given other banks failing, committing ahead of time to finding a long term holder to the $90B mortgage security (in addition to the large set of stable depositor assets they held) was probably a much safer bet than the other options, regardless if a buyer fully committed to either asset group.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      I’d guess (and it’s purely a guess) that it was their loan portfolio that made assessing their balance sheet hard to price. MBS’ and long term bonds can be priced using very standard techniques. Loans secured with startup equity warrants on the other hand are tough.
- mdasen 4y ago
  The announcement from Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC was that depositors would be made whole and that there would be an assessment on banks to cover it. As such, I'd assume that there was no buyer. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer... Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. While they say "no losses will be borne by the taxpayer", making banks pay who will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying - or at least a substantial portion of taxpayers who are banking customers. Maybe banks won't be able to pass along the costs through increased fees or lower rates and will have to eat the costs.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    > will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying By that logic the cup of coffee I bought earlier was paid for by the taxpayer because I a taxpayer paid for it.
neom 4y ago
HSBC just restructured, I've been an HSBC US customer for 10 years including business banking, they're not going anywhere, just only serving high net worth and business now. I agree it would have been nice if they bought SVB, they'v been great for me with my startups, they're really good at business banking.
- thiago_fm 4y ago
  I want to build a business someday, and have always been interested on what to watch for when looking for a business bank as a founder. Do you mind sharing why do you think HSBC is a good business bank and what are the typical qualities a business needs to have to be great for founders?
  - neom 4y ago
    For me: Strong account manager who takes the time to understand the business, doesn't send you forms to fill in that don't have basic info already filled in for you, mostly don't bother you, when there are issues does most of the work to resolve them and only rely on you to do the last leg, don't offer products or services unless they're relevant, uses online tools like docusign or their internal equivalent, has good online banking, mostly doesn't bother you.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I've also been an HSBC US customer for like 6-7 years, and quite happy with them. They decided to keep me too haha.
  - neom 4y ago
    HAH! I remember calling my account manager asking if I was being kicked to Citizens lol... felt nice when they told me I could stay!! :)

dmix 4y ago

We don't know who bought SVB yet it will likely be announced tomorrow (EST/PST timezone) probably. The US gov announcing the full confidence of deposits wasn't merely an altruistic move, they likely had a buyer at the time of announcement and maybe a secondary commitment to support the mortgage debt which caused the whole thing.

TMWNN 4y ago
You may be right, but the news coverage I've seen implies that the full backstop of all deposits regardless of size was announced because there is no buyer for SVB. Basically, there just wasn't enough time for buyers to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger.
- dmix 4y ago
  Ah that's very possible. It makes sense their main objective was calming the market given other banks failing, committing ahead of time to finding a long term holder to the $90B mortgage security (in addition to the large set of stable depositor assets they held) was probably a much safer bet than the other options, regardless if a buyer fully committed to either asset group.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    I’d guess (and it’s purely a guess) that it was their loan portfolio that made assessing their balance sheet hard to price. MBS’ and long term bonds can be priced using very standard techniques. Loans secured with startup equity warrants on the other hand are tough.
mdasen 4y ago
The announcement from Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC was that depositors would be made whole and that there would be an assessment on banks to cover it. As such, I'd assume that there was no buyer. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer... Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. While they say "no losses will be borne by the taxpayer", making banks pay who will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying - or at least a substantial portion of taxpayers who are banking customers. Maybe banks won't be able to pass along the costs through increased fees or lower rates and will have to eat the costs.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > will then pass along those costs to their customers seems like a roundabout way of taxpayers paying By that logic the cup of coffee I bought earlier was paid for by the taxpayer because I a taxpayer paid for it.

neom 4y ago

HSBC just restructured, I've been an HSBC US customer for 10 years including business banking, they're not going anywhere, just only serving high net worth and business now. I agree it would have been nice if they bought SVB, they'v been great for me with my startups, they're really good at business banking.

thiago_fm 4y ago
I want to build a business someday, and have always been interested on what to watch for when looking for a business bank as a founder. Do you mind sharing why do you think HSBC is a good business bank and what are the typical qualities a business needs to have to be great for founders?
- neom 4y ago
  For me: Strong account manager who takes the time to understand the business, doesn't send you forms to fill in that don't have basic info already filled in for you, mostly don't bother you, when there are issues does most of the work to resolve them and only rely on you to do the last leg, don't offer products or services unless they're relevant, uses online tools like docusign or their internal equivalent, has good online banking, mostly doesn't bother you.
arcticbull 4y ago
I've also been an HSBC US customer for like 6-7 years, and quite happy with them. They decided to keep me too haha.
- neom 4y ago
  HAH! I remember calling my account manager asking if I was being kicked to Citizens lol... felt nice when they told me I could stay!! :)