Hacker News Reader

Comment by garry | Hacker News Reader

These are businesses that had a reasonable expectation for their deposits to be there, and we are not advocating for a bailout of SVB's management or equity holders.

View on HN

Sir you should talk rather firmly to your VC friends who told their portfolio companies to withdraw to maybe not spread FUD next time because things happen. It sucks this time around. Get those founders bridge loans instead of replying to a rando on the internet (though I appreciate the opportunity to interact).

If you want to understand why SVB failed, feel free to read writeups in proper financial publications, like FT or Bloomberg, and please avoid "mainstream" sites by clueless journos with zero finance knowledge. This one is good: https://www.ft.com/content/0387e331-61b4-4848-9e50-04775b4c3...

SVB didn't fail because of "FUD", but because of a dumb decision to invest at the top. SVB is squarely at fault here.

Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/xMscB

I'd like to see a post-mortem or some sort of regulatory investigation to understand how it all went wrong. SVB had a risk management department, so what compelled SVB to make the decision that sealed its fate?

There can be more than one link in a causal chain. The broad problem was bank executive choices. But the urgent problem was a bank run caused in part by VCs telling everybody to take their money out.

> These are businesses that had a reasonable expectation for their deposits to be there

These are businesses who willing took a chance that their deposits might not be there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com