SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by machina_ex_deus on Monday March 13, 2023 @04:37PM (#35142177)

"It turned out that one of the biggest risks to our business model was catering to a very tightly knit group of investors who exhibit herd-like mentalities"

And I kind of agree. Yes, the mistake was not hedging MBS and treasuries interest rates.

But are they really the only bank in the world doing that mistake?

What truly made it fatal is the VCs. That's also why nobody is coming to buy them. The speed at which the bank run happened, showed exactly how much they valued the bank.

If you're swimming with sharks, it's a big mistake to bleed. But let's not pretend the sharks are innocents. Bleeding isn't usually so fatal.

Which is why I don't think the sharks deserve a bailout.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by yunwal on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:16PM (#35142810)

> But are they really the only bank in the world doing that mistake?

I’m not sure that looking to the financial sector for examples of fiscal responsibility is actually reasonable, but I’d guess that they’re the only bank that’s “too-big-to-fail” that could possibly fail because of a single slack discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by lmm on Monday March 13, 2023 @11:38PM (#35147142)

Meh. Larry Fink could probably kill a non-big-four bank single-handedly if he really wanted to. Wealth is concentrated right now, and power even more so.

[ Parent | on HN ]