There are political forces on both the left and the right against bailing out depositors because the startup industry is hated. We need to protect our industry from further damage, including by being ahead of bank runs on other banks. If that results in triggering those bank runs, so be it.
Here's (admittedly weak) evidence: calling for actions that lead to bank runs.
It's hard to take defense of startups seriously where startups are blatantly going to screw others over for their own sake. Do I get it? Yes. But it's more than me vs them; they made it an "us" vs them.
The "them" in this case are those who gleefully point out that only 250k is insured by the FDIC and any startup that deposited more than that was engaging in risky behavior and deserves to lose their money.
In such a situation, you can't cry foul on those seeking to move their money into safer banks, even if doing so precipitates a bank run.
It's self-evident because it's self-evident. Please don't say incorrect statements like the ones you just made. The fact that startup culture is bad isn't in dispute.
Nor would it ever be public. If it was the banks at the top would be under FDIC tomorrow or being pressured to not be within the next month.
The 2008 crisis showed FDIC at their most effective but the vast majority of the ~100/per yr banks taken over were known well before any customer found out. The difference between them and SVB was that w/ SVB served plenty of well connected VCs who dedicated their lives to being connected to the latest market information before other VC/angel/wall st players found out. Mom and pop shops even with larger banking businesses never faced the same sort of bank run risk.
Their financial state could be kept hidden without it turning into a bank run 100x easier than a bank serving VC-connected types. So as long as the FDIC learned of problems all they had to do was move before the regular consumer bank client found out their small town bank branch was at risk, which was a much easier ask. Then once FDIC finds a larger buyer to stabilize it the customer didn't worry too much and the business is saved, although typically owned by some mega bank.
SVB was the last sort of business to survive such an information risk almost by design of their clientele.
Public companies file public records, so yes, it is public.
And First Republic Bank looks like it could be the next to fail, likely within days, barring intervention. Without a systemic backstop the runs will almost certainly continue
The stock price has nothing to do with whether the bank is solvent. It's about the balance sheet and if they can service a large amount of withdrawals within a short timespan.
Stock price can only be treated as an indicator of what the market thinks.
Indeed. Which is what has diluted this conversation so heavily. Everyone wants to point at the tech Startups using SVB for boring banking as the why (and the "I told you VC was a bubble") instead of the 2008 style wall St gambling the bankers engaged in using tech startup money. The VCs might be responsible for the bank run but they aren't why the bank made stupid mortgage investments and ultimately failed.
Not really. What SVB invested in was NOT the same kind of thing that tanked 2008 — in 2008, it was (basically) lies about the creditworthiness of MBS and default rates going through the roof.
SVB held a lot of MBS but it was a safe tranch — the risk was not of default, but rather of a market value decrease if interest rates rose.
Which they did.
Which would not have been a problem, because the full value would eventually be paid back in full, as long as the bank didn’t need to sell them.
Which they did, because more depositors were withdrawing funds than expected, because the investment market tanked and startups were drawing down funds.
Which resulted in selling a loss.
Which spooked VCs.
Which caused a run on the bank.
This was not a 2008-style “Wall St. gambling” problem — if anything it was a misunderstanding of risk, but not in the “wow, 50% annual returns, who cares how safe it is” sense.
