Comment Re:Decision making that has little to do with logi (Score 5, Informative) 233
They did not have any problems with 'high risk' investments.
Their main problem was liquidity, because they had too much money (55%+) in long-term US treasuries.
They did not have any problems with 'high risk' investments.
Their main problem was liquidity, because they had too much money (55%+) in long-term US treasuries.
This will not win me many friends or mod points, but it needs to be said:
FUCK OFF, YOU HOMOPHOBIC, RACIST ASSHOLES.
This is directed at all of the jerks that are going to appear in comments claiming, without a shred of evidence or logic, that the bank failed because of policies at the bank that they don't like.
The pattern is exemplified a WSJ editorial that actually said this:
I'm not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.
This isn't analysis. This is starting from the conclusion, and working backwards from there, but without even pretending to find a reason. It's just bigoted speculation, in print.
We also have assholes here at
https://slashdot.org/comments....
If these idiots were actually concerned about 'distraction', they should have started with the CEO. His bio lists a bunch of stuff that doesn't directly involve SVB:
Greg was named to the Silicon Valley Business Journal's inaugural Power 100 list in 2023. He is a Class A Director for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and since 2016 has been a member of TechNet's executive council, which he chaired from 2020-2022. He is also a member of the executive board of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which he chaired from 2014-2017, and serves on the One Mind at Work Guiding Council.
This story blaming remote work looks like it's also working backwards from the conclusion, but at least it's not as steeped in racism and homophobia.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg actually did a bit of journalism, and looked at documents where the executives at SVB ignored a recommendation to buy shorter-term bonds back in 2020:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
But the real facts in that article are just going to get lost in the noise
Buy short-term bonds, which was a specific recommendation at the bank:
That certainly played out at SVB. In late 2020, the firm's asset-liability committee received an internal recommendation to buy shorter-term bonds as more deposits flowed in, according to documents viewed by Bloomberg. That shift would reduce the risk of sizable losses if interest rates quickly rose. But it would have a cost: an estimated $18 million reduction in earnings, with a $36 million hit going forward from there.
Executives balked.
The name "Wray" only appears once in that linked opinion piece, and isn't associated with any statements.
This was a bank run.
There's no indication there was anything wrong with their loan portfolio. It was just too illiquid to handle the cash draw. like all loan portfolios. See: It's a Wonderful Life.
From the CEO's bio.
Greg was named to the Silicon Valley Business Journal's inaugural Power 100 list in 2023. He is a Class A Director for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and since 2016 has been a member of TechNet's executive council, which he chaired from 2020-2022. He is also a member of the executive board of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which he chaired from 2014-2017, and serves on the One Mind at Work Guiding Council.
You might want to start there when condemning someone for having too many extracurricular items on their plate.
For all you and I know, they did the risk assessment job well, and the CEO and others (in particular whoever was in charge of capital management) failed to act.
The assumption in your post: based on this list of external factors, they did not.
I'm guessing you know what we call assumptions based on factors unrelated to actual job performance.
Oh, and that daily mail article that quotes "a Twitter user" like they're some kind of expert is complete garbage.
In no way is it "community owned".
Except for the part where they are quite literally owned by the community.
If you want to make the argument that they behave exactly like a privately-owned company would, then make that argument, but claiming they aren't community-owned is not accurate phrasing.
Note that there seem to be some things that will work against that argument, if you choose to make it, e.g.:
- This statement, where they claim their mission is "to enhance quality of life for our customers and support local economic growth". That's not typical of for-profit companies.
- Your note that the mayor appoints members of the board - choosing who is in charge is kind of important. Also, how many does the mayor appoint? There only seem to be five. Who appoints the others?
- Their below-average costs and above-average bandwidths.
"EBP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sounds like it is community-owned.
Where is the evidence about President Biden?
Where is this evidence about President Biden?
The emails I've seen talked about how Hunter Biden had introduced his father to some people. And that's it.
It's not really evidence of anything.
Speak for yourself. I will *never* vote for Hunter Biden.
This is too much power to be allowed into the hands of such a small few.
You can address that with anti-trust law.
Insane: thinking "it didn't double the death rate" is an actual argument.
You do not have an absolute freedom to spew deadly viruses at people; you have never had that right. There are legitimate arguments to be had about what restrictions are appropriate for the threat level, but you're obviously too emotional to engage in a real discussion.
Australia: 27 million people, 2,000 covid deaths
Texas: 29 million people, 75,000 covid deaths
There are real civil rights concerns with Australia's approach, but it has been effective.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
