2 ms·
The fault is also with VCs who mandated that portfolio companies concentrate large uninsured deposits in one bank, increasing the risk of a run. The bank to my
by gmd63 4y ago
The fault is also with VCs who mandated that portfolio companies concentrate large uninsured deposits in one bank, increasing the risk of a run. The bank to my knowledge didn’t even offer insured cash sweeps, a basic financial product for deposits above 250k.
There is a clip I saw on twitter as this was happening of Jason Calacanis bragging insufferably about his special treatment from SVB in obtaining quick and favorable terms for a private mortgage, likely thanks to the amount of business he and other investors brought the bank.
So no, I reject your claim that the same people that would design Class A shares to be inferior to Class B shares, then say “no takesy backseys!” when executing a hostile takeover of your company are not at fault here.
How can a discipline that prides itself in superior networking ability, information gathering, and prudent decision making not be at fault for pooling a stupid amount of wealth in the first bank to go broke post COVID bubble?
- dev_tty01 4y agoYes. I agreed that the VCs are at fault for poor decisions relating to their use of SVB in the face of known issues with the bank. I also agree with your additional point that the initial concentration of uninsured funds in a single bank was also a bad idea.