4 ms·

I enjoy a lot of patio11's writing, but I find this article disappointing. The purpose of the article seems to be for patio11 to congratulate himself for being

I enjoy a lot of patio11's writing, but I find this article disappointing. The purpose of the article seems to be for patio11 to congratulate himself for being so clever and to mock this CEO for daring to question him. I don't feel like he actually addresses the CEO's criticism in good faith. To look at the very first point: >> Silvergate was trivially solvent based on their call reports. Anyone assessing their liquidity position saw this (we were doing so). Your implication that they were doomed due to BSA findings doesn’t comport with any regulatory practice—banks don’t get closed for this. > Had we stated or implied that Silvergate was insolvent, that would have been very improper. Insolvency of a financial institution is a serious charge. We assume McCauley believes we must have made it, because no bank CEO could possibly believe that solvency is the only obligation of a financial institution. We did not make this accusation. I'm admittedly not knowledgeable about banking regulation, but it seems like patio11 is willfully misinterpreting the CEO's criticism. The CEO's claim was that patio11's article implied that Silvergate was doomed due to BSA findings, not that patio11 accused Silvergate of being insolvent. I don't think the CEO did a great job either, as his criticism doesn't cite specifics in patio11's article, but patio11 is just further muddying the water by dunking on the CEO rather than considering whether he misrepresented anything in his piece. patio11 also inexplicably switches from "I" to "we" partway through the article for no apparent reason other than to sound more pretentious. There is the line "The following is in the voice of the company." but he continues to refer to himself as "I" after that announcement.

lesuorac 2y ago
Patio11 is just responding to any interpretation of the CEO's comments. If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it. And right after the solvency discussion, patio11 goes on to list 5 banks in the last decade that were directly closed because of BSA issues.
- patiofanmostly 2y ago
  >If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it. The CEO's assertion isn't a non-sequitur. It supports the claim he makes in the next sentence, which is the actual criticism of patio11's piece. Let's simplify the example: >>CEO: Arnold Schwarzenegger won Mr. Universe four times in the late 60s. Your implication that Schwarzenegger was physically unfit in the 1960s doesn't comport with any reasonable definition of physical fitness. >Critic: Had we stated or implied that Arnold Schwarzenegger did not win Mr. Universe, that would have been very improper. Is it obvious in that case that the critic is not addressing the CEO's actual point? You can imply that Arnold Schwarzenegger is physically unfit without specifically claiming that he never won Mr. Universe just like you can imply that Silvergate was doomed for shutdown by regulators without specifically saying that Silvergate was insolvent.
hnthrow90348765 2y ago
The CEO isn't simply questioning him, he is asking for a retraction. That is worth this sort of article when it's your livelihood and reputation. This would have been a nothing-burger if he hadn't used 'retraction'.
mcmcmc 2y ago
To be frank it seems like you’re the one doing the willful misinterpretation. The purpose was to make a statement that asking a journalist for a retraction is serious business with legal implications, and doing so flippantly is a good way to get dunked on. The CEO bringing up solvency before claiming that “banks don’t get closed for [BSA findings]” implied that banks not suffering from insolvency don’t get shut down, which is throughly debunked with several examples.
timerol 2y ago
The response to the Silvergate section was in two parts: one response for solvency, and one response for BSA. The core of the latter is pretty short, essentially "Silvergate was incompetent and the original article is correct as written" The section mentions Anchorage's OCC consent order for their own BSA issues, as well as an explanation of why these issues are important and gives examples of banks that were shut down by regulators.

lesuorac 2y ago

Patio11 is just responding to any interpretation of the CEO's comments. If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it. And right after the solvency discussion, patio11 goes on to list 5 banks in the last decade that were directly closed because of BSA issues.

patiofanmostly 2y ago
>If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it. The CEO's assertion isn't a non-sequitur. It supports the claim he makes in the next sentence, which is the actual criticism of patio11's piece. Let's simplify the example: >>CEO: Arnold Schwarzenegger won Mr. Universe four times in the late 60s. Your implication that Schwarzenegger was physically unfit in the 1960s doesn't comport with any reasonable definition of physical fitness. >Critic: Had we stated or implied that Arnold Schwarzenegger did not win Mr. Universe, that would have been very improper. Is it obvious in that case that the critic is not addressing the CEO's actual point? You can imply that Arnold Schwarzenegger is physically unfit without specifically claiming that he never won Mr. Universe just like you can imply that Silvergate was doomed for shutdown by regulators without specifically saying that Silvergate was insolvent.

hnthrow90348765 2y ago

The CEO isn't simply questioning him, he is asking for a retraction. That is worth this sort of article when it's your livelihood and reputation. This would have been a nothing-burger if he hadn't used 'retraction'.

mcmcmc 2y ago

To be frank it seems like you’re the one doing the willful misinterpretation. The purpose was to make a statement that asking a journalist for a retraction is serious business with legal implications, and doing so flippantly is a good way to get dunked on. The CEO bringing up solvency before claiming that “banks don’t get closed for [BSA findings]” implied that banks not suffering from insolvency don’t get shut down, which is throughly debunked with several examples.

timerol 2y ago

The response to the Silvergate section was in two parts: one response for solvency, and one response for BSA. The core of the latter is pretty short, essentially "Silvergate was incompetent and the original article is correct as written" The section mentions Anchorage's OCC consent order for their own BSA issues, as well as an explanation of why these issues are important and gives examples of banks that were shut down by regulators.