His idea of "conservative investments" appears to be heavily government related. I would highly disagree with that assessment, meaning, SVB was not a conservatively structured financial institution.
Said poster assumes that the Venture Capitalist investitures that SVB held for others were low-risk (or at the very least, not high risk). We have no idea what the actual risk is of the people using SVB for their venture capitalizing.
OP also seems to take SVB's books as 100% honest, which is laughable these days. If you haven't learned how corrupt the financial institutions are these days, then you haven't learned much.
All that having been said, solid analysis of how much the financial world is in danger. Again, this analysis also ignores much of the finance world's shady dealing.
TLDR: SVB isn't necessary a good example of a solid financial institution. Things look riskier than OP says. Lastly, OP isn't taking into account the shadiness of the financial world and their cronies.
Oh, the irony. "Getting cash out now" is what CAUSES a run on the banks in the first place.
Herpa Derp.
SVB's collapse was predictable, and the result of an completely inappropriate mix of maturity dates on its assets. Frankly the incompetence shown by the SVB's leadership and CEO is staggering especially for someone who was on the board of the San Francisco Fed.
SVB was run by woke idiots, for woke idiots. They were a collection of diversity-hire buffoons, and the results were not only predictable but inevitable. Extrapolating from SVB to all the other financial institutions is simply not accurate.
If banks were merely a box in which people store their assets, there would be no issue in taking back your property from the box, just like if you check your coat at a restaurant or club, you wouldn't expect the restaurant/club to go bankrupt if everyone wanted their own property back at the end of the evening.
3 caveats on the OP's analysis.
His idea of "conservative investments" appears to be heavily government related. I would highly disagree with that assessment, meaning, SVB was not a conservatively structured financial institution.
Said poster assumes that the Venture Capitalist investitures that SVB held for others were low-risk (or at the very least, not high risk). We have no idea what the actual risk is of the people using SVB for their venture capitalizing.
OP also seems to take SVB's books as 100% honest, which is laughable these days. If you haven't learned how corrupt the financial institutions are these days, then you haven't learned much.
All that having been said, solid analysis of how much the financial world is in danger. Again, this analysis also ignores much of the finance world's shady dealing.
TLDR: SVB isn't necessary a good example of a solid financial institution. Things look riskier than OP says. Lastly, OP isn't taking into account the shadiness of the financial world and their cronies.
TLDR's TLDR: buckle up, bumpy road ahead
Nameless, thanks for the insights. Care to hypothecate regarding "bumpy road" ?
Get cash out now, there is going to be a run on the banks when the sheeple start panicking. You can always put it back in.
Oh, the irony. "Getting cash out now" is what CAUSES a run on the banks in the first place.
Herpa Derp.
SVB was run by woke idiots, for woke idiots. They were a collection of diversity-hire buffoons, and the results were not only predictable but inevitable. Extrapolating from SVB to all the other financial institutions is simply not accurate.
Ok, keep yours in. To each his own!
Getting YOUR cash out certainly isn't. What a stupid comment.
If you're not a billionaire, you don't matter to banks.
I don't doubt what you're saying. I think the point is more about domino effects.
If banks were merely a box in which people store their assets, there would be no issue in taking back your property from the box, just like if you check your coat at a restaurant or club, you wouldn't expect the restaurant/club to go bankrupt if everyone wanted their own property back at the end of the evening.