3 ms·

I mean they would have recovered 80-90+ percent of their assets without government support. Plus many would have been back stopped by VC. People are really read

• disruptivesloth 4y ago
  Yeah they only would have realized 20-30B of loss tops, why are we even wasting our time discussing a non-issue ?
• ajross 4y ago
  > Plus many would have been back stopped by VC. I think that's very suspect given the behavior of the VC set. Altman said he was going to write a few loans ("six figure" ones, even! That's, like, more than a car loan!), but the "whiny Calacanis types" were absolutely the rule, not the exception. What has people so upset is exactly what the article is pointing out. The very set that claimed so loudly to be Brave Superheroes taking the risks that no one else could tolerate turned out to be outrageously risk-averse when faced with actually losing their own money. And I think that calls into question the whole venture capital business model. It's not what we thought it was. At the top, it was a cartel-run gravy train, squeezing investment dollars from downstream investors and turning that into income for the partners at the big players.
  • ryan93 4y ago
    maybe i underestimated the number of calcanis types.
  • treis 4y ago
    $100k is also like one pay cycle for a 10 person start up. The $10-20 billion in bailout sounds like a lot but it's not much compared to the market cap that banks are losing. Charles Schwab alone lost 30-40 billion in market cap because of SVB and bounced back up 10-15 on the bailout. The Fed action was to protect banks. A bunch of tech bros getting bailed out was a side effect of that.