SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by trilobyte on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:32PM (#35143103)

Any investment strategy will require addressing various forms of risk and making tradeoffs, but it is a choice. SVB did not properly hedge against this risk which, as soon as interest rates started rising, should have been a priority for their leadership to have a plan to address.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by norswap on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @10:23AM (#35151999)

Could they have done better? Sure. Hindsight is 20/20.

Would it have been a reasonable assumption? No. As pointed out in the parent, every bank pretty much works like this, they're all liable to go under in the presence of a big enough run.

Also if it must have been so obvious to them, it probably should have been obvious to the regulatory agencies in charge of monitoring banks and avoiding exactly these situations, as well as the Fed who set the policies leading to this in the first place.

It just wasn't part of anyone's threat model.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by trilobyte on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:16AM (#35183052)

This isn't a hindsight thing, this is a well-understood risk in finance. The lead time on rising interest rates was also significant enough for SVB to have shifted their investment strategy. Regulatory bodies in the US are both underfunded and hamstrung in their ability to regulate, and for a bank of SVBs size, they would not have been a prime target for regulators.

[ Parent | on HN ]