MrMan

19 ms·

31.
by MrMan 4y ago
those clauses are a sign that SVB and the VCs are in bed together and if you take their money and agree to these terms you are complicit too. the VCs used SVB loans to their portfolio companies to magnify the effective size of their funds w
32.
by MrMan 4y ago
there is no contagion except that spread by these fucking criminal VCs on twitter.
33.
by MrMan 4y ago
SVB was insolvent
34.
by MrMan 4y ago
this is so fucked I hate these evil SV libertarian crooks. this is wrong
35.
by MrMan 4y ago
the bank was closed by the FDIC due to insolvency
36.
by MrMan 4y ago
I am very interested in how that toxic loan portfolio is valued.
37.
by MrMan 4y ago
yes startups are a rickety vessel and they usually fail, we shouldn't pay for that
38.
by MrMan 4y ago
that's a lie. and if there is contagion it won't be stemmed by bailing you as a depositor out, we will need that money elsewhere to shore up the system. good luck to you
39.
by MrMan 4y ago
the depositors shouldn't get paid beyond what remains of the assets of the bank!!!
40.
by MrMan 4y ago
I mostly agree with this. these players should not be rewarded for using the deposits of the bank as a multiplier of their funds AUM, and the portfolio companies were pawns who willingly played along, or were ignorant and either way deserve
41.
by MrMan 4y ago
you are doing a pretty good job trying to explain away the officers of this bank running it into the ground. you havent even started to try to excuse their lending practices. what are you trying to accomplish? their CRO committed career-end
42.
by MrMan 4y ago
buy side traders blowing up is a lot different than a bank blowing up so the risks are not the same
43.
by MrMan 4y ago
Yeah they can all burn
44.
by MrMan 4y ago
Ridiculous Shameful
45.
by MrMan 4y ago
I sincerely hope you get to live in a world without modern banking and you get a chance to reflect on how dumb this outlook is
46.
by MrMan 4y ago
venture debt with generous terms as well
47.
by MrMan 4y ago
SVB was an incompetently run bank whose major business model relied on outright cronyism. they deserve everything they get.
48.
by MrMan 4y ago
depositors are only entitled to what is left over after resolution of the assets, nothing more! dont make this situation worse by advocating for something unethical and which is bad for the entire system
49.
by MrMan 4y ago
HN is much worse than many sub-reddits. Look at the belligerent ignorance on display not just here, but that which is demonstrated by the VCs who seem to collectively lack a sufficient knowledge of finance and other things. The decline in q
50.
by MrMan 4y ago
this bank stuck out as troubled far before this event
51.
by MrMan 4y ago
I think the chief risk officer at this bank left last year, they may have been the person who got the bank into these positions. it will be interesting to see if there is news coverage about that person's role in the crisis.
52.
by MrMan 4y ago
this is a lie, I am petty sure. why are you posting this stuff
53.
by MrMan 4y ago
that's not true -by "mostly" do you mean 70 to 80%? losing 20% of your principal is a huge loss
54.
by MrMan 4y ago
it is definitely insolvent
55.
by MrMan 4y ago
yeah its high comedy
56.
by MrMan 4y ago
nonsense - what banking innovations do startups need? is there really any such thing as a startup? or are we just talking about small businesses some of which grow into larger still unprofitable businesses? hopefully this mythologizing stop
57.
by MrMan 4y ago
the assets the bank held are worth some % less than the amount they took in deposits but its not 90% less, its something like 20%. so on average, people will get something like 80% of their money back. I dont think the asset price declines
58.
by MrMan 4y ago
your last sentence is demonstrably false!
59.
by MrMan 4y ago
wow very solid. you could have found SVB in screen just by the LTD ration and HTM percentages and zoomed in from there.
60.
by MrMan 4y ago
they were offering 4.5%? that explains a lot in terms of their reaching for yield in low quality assets

More ›