[HN Gopher] VC firms are urging founders to pull money from trou... ___________________________________________________________________ VC firms are urging founders to pull money from troubled Silicon Valley Bank Author : rmason Score : 36 points Date : 2023-03-09 21:48 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.semafor.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.semafor.com) | jeffbee wrote: | I like how every time I look at this and assume that the market | surely must have internalized this information by now, an hour | later the stock is down another 15%. | majormajor wrote: | Why would VC firms urge their founders to all use the same bank | in the first place? Seems like a recipe for Bad Things(tm)... | | (I assume the answer is some combo of laziness and kickbacks and | old boys club and such...?) | convolvatron wrote: | not ..completely. startups have a slightly different profile | than normal businesses, and SVB is well-oiled machine for | working with them. maybe its more charitable to say that they | have specialized? | aussiegreenie wrote: | Why?? Banks are * _VERY*_ safe. | UncleOxidant wrote: | One can imagine that a startup might have more than the $250K | FDIC limit in the bank. I think that's what they're being | advised of: Get under the $250K limit ASAP. | gumby wrote: | Most portfolio companies have more than the FDIC limit. My | preference is to have 2-3 months in cash, the rest in | commercial paper (which would not be threatened by the bank | failure, but did "break the buck" in 2008). In the early stage | 2-3 months of cash is much less than the FDIC limit, but later | on that could change. | | I've been using SVB since the mid 90s, but most recently chose | First Republic instead. FR poached some of the great SVB people | anyway so it wasn't a huge change. | | FWIW, SVB got into trouble in the 80s due to their real estate | practice. They stuck to their knitting after that (except they | kept their wine practice, which is small and I guess amusing) | so I find this situation rather interesting. | capableweb wrote: | Well, they're safe until they aren't. Bank runs have happened, | and more of them will in the future. Nothing is 100% although | using banks is probably the safest storage for funds, if you | compare... | ceejayoz wrote: | Bank collapses cause disruption, and potential loss of balances | over the FDIC limits. A well-funded startup really doesn't want | their money in a failing bank. | shadowofneptune wrote: | Looking at the FDIC website: | | > The FDIC does NOT cover (even if purchased at an insured | bank): Stock investments Bond | investments Mutual funds Life insurance | policies Annuities Municipal securities | Safe deposit boxes or their contents U.S. Treasury | bills, bonds or note | | This article is about the bank's investments, if I read it | correctly. Safe for a household does not mean safe for a | company that lives on investment money. | ceejayoz wrote: | There's an equivalent for securities, the SIPC. It's capped | like FDIC insurance is, but bonds/stocks have _some_ | protection in this regard. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection. | .. | shadowofneptune wrote: | Ah, I see. Looks like it still only has a limit of 250,000 | USD, which seems low for modern business. How far would | that get some of these companies? | ender341341 wrote: | Speed, if all your money disappears tomorrow you may miss | payroll while you're waiting for the FDIC to get you your | money. | andrewstuart wrote: | National bank runs start with one bank. | greenyoda wrote: | Big ongoing discussion about Silicon Valley Bank: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35086836 | cheriot wrote: | Maybe I'm wearing a tin foil hat... are any of these VC's | shorting SIVB? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-09 23:00 UTC)