There is zero political appetite for bailing out depositors in Washington. (Paying depositors with SVB’s assets is not a bail out.) There might be in Sacramento. But the current VC showboating appears aimed at deflecting blame, not actually lobbying.
I'm increasingly convinced that the showboating is a last ditch effort to scare regulators/politicians/someone/anyone into promising a full bailout in an attempt to avoid the impending oversight. When the SVB asset network is unwrapped, my guess is that it's going to turn out to be almost 100% circular, a cyclic engine designed to fund the startup and eventual acquisition of company after company while the owners (who own both the startups and the bank!) take a cut at each step. There's really no better explanation for how all these startups all ended up buying 100% commodity banking services from one institution.
Somewhere in the last decade, the smart VC's stopped getting paid in unicorn exits and started running the business like a cartel. And my guess it that's going to turn out to have been questionably legal in a few corners.
> the showboating is a last ditch effort to scare regulators/politicians/someone/anyone into promising a full bailout in an attempt to avoid the impending oversight
Then it would be more targeted. To the degree this is happening, it’s with the Treasury, and it’s coming from rural banks. Not Silicon Valley. Tan and Cuban’s tweets come to mind as those which sound nice to their founders but solidify opposition on the Financial Services and Banking committees for being so brazenly out of touch.
Do you think Cuban and Tan’s tweets would’ve been more well received if they had instead stressed swift movement on FDIC assisting depositors in obtaining immediate cash liquidity to meet short term obligations with the understanding that the industry (companies and investors collectively) would likely eat any deposit shortfall (versus “the sky is falling! Bailouts pls!”)? TLDR More humility and less demanding.
Ha, well, I was clearly wrong. But the feedback I got was that of crypto bros asking for bailouts resembling a frathouse, after a loud and nightlong party, torching the house and telling their neighbours they'd better help out else their homes will burn too.
I've seen people confusing "Big Tech" vs the SVB depositors. And confusing SVB vs the general concept of Silicon Valley itself. And confusing bailing out SVB vs making the depositors whole. I have zero hope that America will be able to grasp any of the nuance.
These are mildly complex topics. Your average Jane or Joe may not understand them, but that doesn't stop a large number of shameless idiots parading their confusion on social media, backed by nothing but very strong tribal feels.
A sale of assets to cover liabilities is the normal procedure. It does not constitute 'help' and does not guarantee depositors will be made whole in the end (I understand that another issue is that many depositors need the cash right now, not in 6 months).
The government will probably want do something to prevent contagion and companies from going under but politically the key is how that help will be financed. The political issue is to use taxpayers' money to help Silicon Valley because, obviously, the optics would that money from struggling families is diverted to help millionaires in the Bay area.
Note, I am not in the US so I am a bit fuzzy on whether 'government' means Washington D.C, Sacramento, or both in varying degrees. But I think the political aspect is the same either way modulo how much clout SV has in one relative to the other.
Here in the UK the government is also considering help, not least before the budget is going to be unveiled this coming week, and I suspect the political aspect is the same. There's high inflation, people are struggling, taxes are rising, and so handing out 'free' help within a matter of a few days to people/companies that are viewed as being in the top 10%, if not 1%, may not be popular. Better to show that help will be such that it won't cost the taxpayer.
yeah, so it all comes down to a math equation that includes things like: how many banks also did risky things are are likely to experience a run on Monday, how to stop the potential contagion, and how to maximize the liquidation value of SVB. All these people yelling what "should" happen or who "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" what are detached from reality.
Very doubtful. Just look at what happened in many cities across the US during the summer of 2019 because of the actions of a handful of degenerate cops in one city. Now just throw in "rich bankers," "silicon valley," "4 corporate officers cashed out millions in the week prior," and "CEO was a SF FED director up until the day of the implosion" and you can do quite a lot to whip people into a frenzy, if crafted properly.
I just wish that you could rope everyone that had a strong opinion on this whole thing into a room without internet access and quiz them on the _most basic_ facts about the situation. I'm confident that you're right, 1/3 (or even more) wouldn't be able to even tell you what happened... yet they confidently declare solutions.
It's actually crazy that now you can be gone from social media for 3-4 days and the entire environment has changed.
Logged on to twitter to see my _entire_ timeline full of takes from every side of the the political spectrum. I can't even untangle it and I don't care too.
My main issue is that _everyone_ presents having an "expert-like" grasp of the situation and knows _exactly_ what the solution is or isn't.
If huge banks like SVB gets bought, doesn't that lead to an undesirable amount of banking centralization in the long run? Or does the bank end up being carved up into a dozen pieces, and a variety of companies can buy pieces of it?
