5 ms·

Literally none of the investors in SVB were bailed out, as you cannot bail out a failed bank.

by Zetice 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kgwgk 4y ago
The investors in depositor companies were (indirectly) bailed out (if there is indeed a shortfall).
- Zetice 4y ago
  "indirectly bailed out" is not "bailed out". The US economy as a whole was "bailed out" by not having a cascading effect of bank failures, does that mean you were "bailed out" too? Are we just devaluing the term entirely?
dvt 4y ago
Imagine thinking that billionaires actually bought SVB stock or held cash in there. Protip: their capital is tied up in dozens of companies, which were, indeed, bailed out.
- Zetice 4y ago
  "Their capital" is vastly different from "them", as it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out Uh, that's what wealthy people do -- they give money to other people to make them even more money. This was so transparently a billionaire bailout (Gary Tan & David Sacks were literally on a press tour), I fail to understand how people are so mesmerized by the shell game here.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      ...that's not what "bailout" means, a "bailout" can only happen before a bank collapses; SVB already collapsed, it cannot be bailed out, definitionally. It's not a shell game, it's a fundamentally different situation where real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected. Further, there is not financial assistance in the form of "free money"; at best what will happen are loans to cover the difference between the available liquidity and the withdraws. The assets SVB once had will, upon maturity, pay for those loans with interest, and only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of their investment. I'm frankly fascinated by the abject cynicism by way of ignorance people think they can get away with on the Internet. Unreal...
      - dvt 4y ago
        > real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected Hard disagree on this. Startups die literally every day, not to mention that we just had tens of thousands of layoffs by big tech companies. In my view, this was a targeted bailout, meant to primarily protect the investment (into startups) of many Silicon Valley investment firms. > only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of their investment. You're still harping on this "investors" thing, which is not even remotely related to my point. You can call me ignorant all day, but my point has zero to do with folks that bought SVB stock, and I'm not fully convinced you actually grasp that.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        Zetice 4y ago
        These aren't "startups that die" they're "businesses that did absolutely nothing wrong that die". Americans do not want to live in a world where a business can die through picking the wrong bank, full stop. Just because the investors in those startups don't get fleeced by a bank doesn't mean they're "bailed out". And "startup" here is not "craps shoot on if it exists in a week" it's "a substantial percentage of businesses with VC backing in a general California geographic area but also across the country." And yes, your point is flat wrong because you don't understand that a bailout is exclusive to investors in the direct company receiving financial support, which does not apply to the already failed SVB, nor does it apply to any depositors who are not receiving any additional money at all, just regaining access to their already existent funds. You are misusing the word, so of course your point isn't making sense with the real definition of the term. I am convinced you don't actually grasp that.

Literally none of the investors in SVB were bailed out, as you cannot bail out a failed bank.

by Zetice 4y ago

Literally none of the investors in SVB were bailed out, as you cannot bail out a failed bank.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kgwgk 4y ago

The investors in depositor companies were (indirectly) bailed out (if there is indeed a shortfall).

Zetice 4y ago
"indirectly bailed out" is not "bailed out". The US economy as a whole was "bailed out" by not having a cascading effect of bank failures, does that mean you were "bailed out" too? Are we just devaluing the term entirely?

dvt 4y ago

Imagine thinking that billionaires actually bought SVB stock or held cash in there. Protip: their capital is tied up in dozens of companies, which were, indeed, bailed out.

Zetice 4y ago
"Their capital" is vastly different from "them", as it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out.
- dvt 4y ago
  > it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out Uh, that's what wealthy people do -- they give money to other people to make them even more money. This was so transparently a billionaire bailout (Gary Tan & David Sacks were literally on a press tour), I fail to understand how people are so mesmerized by the shell game here.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    ...that's not what "bailout" means, a "bailout" can only happen before a bank collapses; SVB already collapsed, it cannot be bailed out, definitionally. It's not a shell game, it's a fundamentally different situation where real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected. Further, there is not financial assistance in the form of "free money"; at best what will happen are loans to cover the difference between the available liquidity and the withdraws. The assets SVB once had will, upon maturity, pay for those loans with interest, and only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of their investment. I'm frankly fascinated by the abject cynicism by way of ignorance people think they can get away with on the Internet. Unreal...
    - dvt 4y ago
      > real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected Hard disagree on this. Startups die literally every day, not to mention that we just had tens of thousands of layoffs by big tech companies. In my view, this was a targeted bailout, meant to primarily protect the investment (into startups) of many Silicon Valley investment firms. > only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of their investment. You're still harping on this "investors" thing, which is not even remotely related to my point. You can call me ignorant all day, but my point has zero to do with folks that bought SVB stock, and I'm not fully convinced you actually grasp that.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Zetice 4y ago
        These aren't "startups that die" they're "businesses that did absolutely nothing wrong that die". Americans do not want to live in a world where a business can die through picking the wrong bank, full stop. Just because the investors in those startups don't get fleeced by a bank doesn't mean they're "bailed out". And "startup" here is not "craps shoot on if it exists in a week" it's "a substantial percentage of businesses with VC backing in a general California geographic area but also across the country." And yes, your point is flat wrong because you don't understand that a bailout is exclusive to investors in the direct company receiving financial support, which does not apply to the already failed SVB, nor does it apply to any depositors who are not receiving any additional money at all, just regaining access to their already existent funds. You are misusing the word, so of course your point isn't making sense with the real definition of the term. I am convinced you don't actually grasp that.