4 ms·

Oh don't get me wrong, I do blame the bank even more. But to pretend like VCs didn't have huge interest in this blowing up in the worsts possible way, is just s

Oh don't get me wrong, I do blame the bank even more. But to pretend like VCs didn't have huge interest in this blowing up in the worsts possible way, is just shutting your eyes. They are such bad actors, their words were all pretending this is something bad, but their actions weren't to recapitalize the bank but to let it blow up intentionally, while spreading FUD. They made a very successful gambit here that they could blow the system up to get what they want (rate hikes stopped). And they won with that gambit. If they get away with this, this gambit to them was totally worth the risk that the Fed won't chicken out. It's a case of murdering and keeping the inheritance. If I were the Fed, I would see this as a jackpot that finally the rate hikes are creating deflation in the best possible location and continue straight ahead. This is even better deflation than you can get by rising rate hikes for everyone.

carlosdp 4y ago
> Oh don't get me wrong, I do blame the bank even more. But to pretend like VCs didn't have huge interest in this blowing up in the worsts possible way, is just shutting your eyes. What are you talking about? What possible interest would they have in killing the by far best capital partner they've ever had (and maybe will ever have had)? The death of SVB makes things significantly harder for VC and startups in the future.
djbusby 4y ago
Are rare hikes stopped?
pbourke 4y ago
> their actions weren't to recapitalize the bank As I understand it, VCs manage pools of money that are structured as limited partnerships. Each pool has an investment objective, and presumably “recapitalize a failing bank” is not one of them. Any VC who did this would probably have been sued by their investors.
birdyrooster 4y ago
So you are saying the bank ceo was in conspiracy with vc heavy weights to tank the bank at the expense of their startups who bank there? Made the CEO buy long term bonds right before a bank run?
rashkov 4y ago
This verges on conspiracy theory logic, to my eyes... no, VCs certainly did not purposefully put their entire portfolios and industries at risk in order to put a stop to interest rate rises. You'd have to presume an all-knowing and all-powerful cast of actors to pull that off. The original point was a good one -- that the overall outcome of this disaster is overly good to VCs, but that's about as far as it goes.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  I'm not saying they made the shitty choices for the bank. I'm saying that given the risk that the bank faced, and their awareness that they are risking systemic failures in their industry, some of them decided to run the bank. And they obviously knew the others would have to follow, because bank runs force you to do it. It only takes one of them to do this calculation and take the gambit, and the rest of them just follow because they have to. The shitty bank choices were independent mistakes, and were the major mistake. But the reason it blew up so strongly is because key players had an interest in a blow up.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

carlosdp 4y ago

> Oh don't get me wrong, I do blame the bank even more. But to pretend like VCs didn't have huge interest in this blowing up in the worsts possible way, is just shutting your eyes. What are you talking about? What possible interest would they have in killing the by far best capital partner they've ever had (and maybe will ever have had)? The death of SVB makes things significantly harder for VC and startups in the future.

djbusby 4y ago

Are rare hikes stopped?

pbourke 4y ago

> their actions weren't to recapitalize the bank As I understand it, VCs manage pools of money that are structured as limited partnerships. Each pool has an investment objective, and presumably “recapitalize a failing bank” is not one of them. Any VC who did this would probably have been sued by their investors.

birdyrooster 4y ago

So you are saying the bank ceo was in conspiracy with vc heavy weights to tank the bank at the expense of their startups who bank there? Made the CEO buy long term bonds right before a bank run?

rashkov 4y ago

This verges on conspiracy theory logic, to my eyes... no, VCs certainly did not purposefully put their entire portfolios and industries at risk in order to put a stop to interest rate rises. You'd have to presume an all-knowing and all-powerful cast of actors to pull that off. The original point was a good one -- that the overall outcome of this disaster is overly good to VCs, but that's about as far as it goes.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
I'm not saying they made the shitty choices for the bank. I'm saying that given the risk that the bank faced, and their awareness that they are risking systemic failures in their industry, some of them decided to run the bank. And they obviously knew the others would have to follow, because bank runs force you to do it. It only takes one of them to do this calculation and take the gambit, and the rest of them just follow because they have to. The shitty bank choices were independent mistakes, and were the major mistake. But the reason it blew up so strongly is because key players had an interest in a blow up.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]