Re:Swedish pension giant loses $1.1 billion from US banks’ c...
by johnbellone on Monday March 13, 2023 @04:44PM
(#35142273)
I am referring to the fact that startups that are being advised by VC firms had a requirement to keep their funds in the bank. If you think that SVB and the VC firms didn't have a special kind of relationship you're missing the facts.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Swedish pension giant loses $1.1 billion from US banks’ c...
by gamblor956 on Monday March 13, 2023 @06:57PM
(#35144345)
I'm aware of the relationship betweeen SVB and the VCs, but it seems that you're confused about what you're arguing.
You're blaming depositors (specifically VC-funded startups) for "benefiting" from a relationship with SVB they were forced into by VCs, and want to deny making all of SVB's depositors whole on the basis of a bank relationship that, for many, was not their choice. Worse, you want the fact that VC-funded startups over-depositing their cash reserves in a single-bank to be used against non-VC funded depositors (i.e., other businesses in the SV area) to deny making them whole on the basis of a "special relationship" that was simply "geographically closest bank willing to provide a loan and banking services."