2 Big 2 Fail 2.0 Billionaire investor Bill Ackman wants US government to bailout Silicon Valley Ban

a reply to: Violater1

I can see them bailing the bank out, after all, what's going to stop them from printing the money at least that's what a government should do. If they don't a domino effect will start. Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Violater1

As much as this stinks to high heaven, SIVB depositors MUST be bailed out, or this WILL turn into a contagion of bank runs.

I have a sense that more shyte will be discovered over the weekend at other banks.



But Alzheimer Joe and his merry band of twenty-something woke White House assholes won't do a thing and this will be worse, MUCH worse than 2009.

SIVB alone had around $189 BILLIONs in deposits....

Depositors who are over the $250,000 FDIC insured limit (in fact only somewhere between 3 and 7% of total deposits are insured). The following list, while incomplete, is approximately sorted by size of exposure:

USDC - Crypto Stablecoin run by Circle - Silicon Valley Bank is one of six banking partners Circle uses for managing the ~25% portion of USDC reserves held in cash. While we await clarity on how the FDIC receivership of SVB will impact its depositors, Circle & USDC continue to operate normally.

ROKU - Roku had 26% of its cash, $487 million with Silicon Valley Bank

BLOCKFI - BlockFi has $227 million in "unprotected" funds in Silicon Valley Bank, according to a bankruptcy document, and may be in violation of U.S. bankruptcy law.

RBLX - Roblox said 5% of its $3b cash and securities balance is held at SVB.

DNA - Gingko Bioworks: Only the cash balance of the company's wholly-owned subsidiary Zymergen Inc. is held in deposit accounts at SVB, representing approximately $74M or 6% of the company's cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2022

RKLB - RocketLab USA had about $38 million in its accounts with the bank, representing about 7.9% of the startup’s cash and equivalents

LC - Lending Club warned about potentially losing funds on deposit at SVB of $21 million, said amount isn't material to its liquidity position or capital levels, and doesn't pose a risk to the group's business or operations.

PAYO - Payoneer: Of the company's approximately $6.4B in total cash balances as of December 31, 2022, less than $20M is held at SVB

PTGX - Protagonist Therapeutics considers its exposure to any liquidity concern at SVB to be limited, given that cash held at SVB is approximately $13 million as of March 9, 2023.

ACHR - Archer Aviation entered into a $20 million loan with SVB in 2021, $10 million of which is due for repayment in 2023

COHU - Cohu announced that it has deposit accounts with SVB with an aggregate balance of approximately $12.3M, which is approximately 3.8% of the company's total cash and investments.

IGMS - IMG Biosciences: 'As of March 10, 2023, the Company holds less than $5.0 million in deposits at SVB. Therefore, the Company believes it does not have any material exposure to any liquidity concerns at SVB.'

RYTM - Rhythm Pharmaceuticals announced that it has deposit accounts with SVB with an aggregate balance of approximately $3.4 million, which is approximately 1.1% of the Company's total cash and cash equivalents.'

SYRS - Syros Pharmaceuticals discloses that, as of March 10, 2023, it has two deposit accounts at Silicon Valley Bank. One of these accounts has a balance of less than $250,000, and the other has a balance of approximately $3.1 million pursuant to a letter of credit that the Company was required to provide to its landlord in connection with the execution of the lease for its corporate headquarters...

EYPT - EyePoint Pharmaceuticals currently maintains a de minimis amount of cash, in the single digit millions of U.S. dollars, with Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB)

ATRA - Atara Biotherapeutics currently maintains an account at Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB") holding cash deposits of approximately $2 million, which amount the Company considers to be immaterial to its liquidity.'

ISEE - Iveric Bio currently maintains a de minimis amount of cash and cash equivalents, in the low single digit millions of U.S. dollars, with Silicon Valley Bank ("SVe").'

VERA - Vera Therapeutics currently holds approximately 1.2% of its cash and investments with SVB. Accordingly, the Company considers its risk exposure relating to SVB to be minimal.

XFOR - X4 Pharmaceuticals had approximately 2.5% of its cash deposits with SVB.

CTMX - CytomX Therapeutics does not consider its exposure to any liquidity concern at SVB to be significant. The cash held at SVB in CytomX’s operating CTMX account is at or near the FDIC-insured limit of $250,000. CytomX also maintains a deposit account at SVB under a standby letter of credit issued pursuant to its office lease for approximately $917,000.'

AXSM - Axsome Therapeutics has material cash deposits with SVB.

WVE - Wave Life Sciences aggregate amount of the company's cash and restricted cash held at SVB is approximately $1.5M.

JNPR - Juniper Networks maintains operating accounts at SVB with a minimal cash balance of less than 1% of the company's total cash

QS - QuantumScape has very limited exposure to SVB, with only a low single digit percentage exposure relative to both the Company's total liquidity and total assets.

I'm shaking my head because I have to agree with you and Bill Ackman. If they are not covered, then it's off to the races on bank withdrawals.

The collapse of SVB is due, in large part to a run on the bank's funds by its depositors. SVB had backed much of its assets in the form of US Treasury notes and bonds; very secure and fiduciarily responsible, but locked in at low interest rates and long terms.

When the Fed Reserve began raising interest rates as high and as fast as they could to slow the rate of inflation, SVB depositors, most of whom were from the tech fields (largely startups and their venture capitalists), rushed to withdraw their deposits to cover the shortfalls induced by the economy.

That left SVB with insufficient ready funds to cover demand, and devalued assets (due to their treasuries and bonds being locked at interest rates below the current, inflated market), un attractive to investors who could infuse the bank with needed (short-term) funding.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I don't know if you or anybody else knows the answer to this but.... If their assets are tied up in treasury bonds, They cannot liquidate them to pay off the original depositors, Could the Gov't just like give them a refund on said bonds to pay off the deposits?

Or at the very least if the Gov't does bail them out, even the FDIC amounts, would the Gov't then seize those bonds as compensation?

originally posted by: Violater1
BOHICA: To Big To Fail Ver 2.0
Billionaire investor Bill Ackman says the US government should consider a "highly dilutive" bailout of Silicon Valley Bank amid jitters about its financial position.

The bank's failure "could destroy an important long-term driver of the economy as VC-backed companies rely on SVB for loans and holding their operating cash," Ackman said in a series of tweets on Thursday. "If private capital can't provide a solution, a highly dilutive gov't preferred bailout should be considered," he said." "We should not reward poor risk management or protect shareholders from risks they knowingly assumed" "The risk of failure and deposit losses here is that the next, least well-capitalized bank faces a run and fails and the dominoes continue to fall. That is why gov’t intervention should be considered.."

, so he practically said , equity holders, management, shareholders, should not be bailed out due to the risk they assumed,...BUT its OK to bail out depositors on the risk they assumed.
Guess where his (or his close associates) cash position is probably positioned at? And I wonder where Pelosi's money and the rest of Congress's money is at. We'll find out shortly (pun).

He gave the Federal Government until the Banks Open tomorrow to promise a bail-out of Silicon Valley Bank.

Here is Treasury Secretary Yellen's response.

FACE THE NATION

Yellen rules out bailout for Silicon Valley Bank: "We're not going to do that again"

More at: www.cbsnews.com...

She said regulators should have paid attention to the warning bells in December 2022.

If CHINA wants something different, expect Joe Biden to mumble something, and Yellen to change her mind.

a reply to: carewemust

That guy, Ackerman has a sketchy track record though.

He wanted to shut down the country for a month when Covid hit.

www.cnbc.com...

Its strange the media gives him so much publicity.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Violater1

As much as this stinks to high heaven, SIVB depositors MUST be bailed out, or this WILL turn into a contagion of bank runs.

I have a sense that more shyte will be discovered over the weekend at other banks.



But Alzheimer Joe and his merry band of twenty-something woke White House assholes won't do a thing and this will be worse, MUCH worse than 2009.

SIVB alone had around $189 BILLIONs in deposits....

the bank should not be bailed out at all. only those depositors who lost more than the insured amount should be bailed out. and in fact should even then only pay up to a maximum of say five million dollars per account. that should be enough to keep most businesses in operation and out of bankruptcy, and should also stop the domino effect of many bank runs. and severely stopping most people and businesses from being damaged, at least too badly.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

That guy, Ackerman has a sketchy track record though.

He wanted to shut down the country for a month when Covid hit.

www.cnbc.com...

Its strange the media gives him so much publicity.

have to admit, if he called for a month shutdown right at the beginning of the pandemic, that would make him one of the very few in the world to at least come close (and even then the actual needed time was double that at two months), to the actual needed quarantine. but everyone else seemed to be saying it would only be needed for TWO WEEKS. that seems to be a major positive thing, for at least being far more right than almost everyone else, and speaks to someone we might want to at least hear out on such a thing, since he was far more right the last time.

a reply to: CriticalStinker BINGO! the Billionaire Brother Network could handle it, but they'd rather have the Gummint they complain about so much handle it. Socialism for rich, dog-eat-dog for us.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Violater1

As much as this stinks to high heaven, SIVB depositors MUST be bailed out, or this WILL turn into a contagion of bank runs.

I have a sense that more shyte will be discovered over the weekend at other banks.



But Alzheimer Joe and his merry band of twenty-something woke White House assholes won't do a thing and this will be worse, MUCH worse than 2009.

SIVB alone had around $189 BILLIONs in deposits....

the bank should not be bailed out at all. only those depositors who lost more than the insured amount should be bailed out. and in fact should even then only pay up to a maximum of say five million dollars per account. that should be enough to keep most businesses in operation and out of bankruptcy, and should also stop the domino effect of many bank runs. and severely stopping most people and businesses from being damaged, at least too badly.

Agreed, just the depositors, not the shareholders

But no, it's gotta be for the full amount, $5m won't do.

Roku for example has hundreds of millions at SIVB. If they don't get bailed out, then what ?
Fire their employees ?
What about other firms ?

Most deposits at SIVB were for large firms.




Yes, it stinks.
But you must bail out all depositors for the FULL amount.


Otherwise, it's gonna create a bank run the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s.
Depression.



That might be the plan, though, just so they can bring in their central bank digital currencies and control your every penny and expense, and ultimately control YOU



Orwellian nightmare....

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Violater1

I can see them bailing the bank out, after all, what's going to stop them from printing the money at least that's what a government should do. If they don't a domino effect will start. Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.

Yep.
Putrid

Stinks.


But must bailout.
Else, instant Depression.

And if they bailout, it's lesser evil but there will be EVIL.
Bailout means money printing and inflation.


And one year from now, possible hyperinflation.


Hyperinflation sucks too.
Looking at history, Argentinian hyperinflation seen there in recent years sucks, but seems to suck less than the 1930s Depression.

a reply to: M5xaz

that is why i said five million. it would be more than enough to keep companies and businesses open and able to pay their way. remember the big companies which would require more money to run, tend to have accounts at most banks, just as protection for this type of thing. in fact someone posted a list of some of those up to hundreds of millions in that bank, and for most of those it was only a fraction (mostly it seems under 5% of their cash). so they are more than fine that way we help protect the economy from this. while at the same time not fleecing the tax payer for tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, for single accounts. which is exactly why there is an amount limit covered. although these day $250,000 is not near enough.

just picture this. i just sold my home for on million dollars (which where i am, would actually be a bargain basement price for a small home). i put the money of course in the bank, by depositing the certified check i got. and there really is no choice. the bank certainly won't want to give you that much cash. in fact unless arranged about a week or so ahead of wanting that much money, they won't give it to you (they won't even give you $5,000 or $10,000, as i found out when i tried once), without prior arrangements, since not only will they likely not actually have that much cash on hand, but if they gave it to you, taking most of their cash,if not all of it. could also result in a bank run, if the people after you at the bank can't get their money, because you have taken most if not all of their on hand cash.

so my money is in the bank, and within a couple days, it will go to pay for my new house. unfortunately this situation with the bank going under happens. and so now here i am, without a house, and unable to pay for my new house (possibly incurring penalties for dropping out of the house deal), because the bank screwed you out of 3/4 of your money.

and that is why i said five million, since money is worth so much less than when the $250,000 was actually worth something when the insurance coverage for that amount started, like being able to buy multiple houses with it. and the fact is that insured amount does need to be appropriately updated to keep it working like it was supposed to. where those who have more than the max limit, they could buy their own insurance to supplement the tiny bit that is insured by the government. after all it's not like most people don't know that you only have $250,000 as it stands now coverage (i see it in their commercials i see all the time on TV). just like they diversify their accounts across many banks, just to keep this type of thing to badly hurt them. Lloyds of London for example will insure almost anything, for a price (even knew about a person who had to use them for car insurance, since no one else would cover them due to their terrible driving and many bad accidents. cost over $5,000 a month for that car insurance , and that was about 20 years or so ago, when i was paying a "high rate" of about $250 a month due to age, sex etc).

paying out hundreds of millions to many single accounts will cost into the billions of dollars, or more. where it would take far less to only pay up to the five million. remember it is tax payer money. especially when, like i said, most of those huge accounts, are only a tiny fraction, in the single digits percentage wise, of those company's cash supply, so it won't even really hurt them to pay out only five mill. and it would certainly be far better than a measly $250,000. and should not lead to any problems like you suggest.

a reply to: generik

1. It will be a problem for large firms like Roku - $5m won't cover $100's of millions

2. The point you are missing is the contagion effect that anyone that has any depositis into any institution that is perceived to be weak would be instantly vulnerable to a bank run if deposits were not guaranteed to their full amounts. Over 20 other institutions were perceived a "weak". And another bank, Signature Bank, was just taken over by the Feds

3. Despite what Yellen just said today, in the last few hours, looks like the Fed announced a non-bailout bailout where all deposits will be guaranteed. That should stop cascading runs to other weak banks, hopefully....

a reply to: M5xaz

bringing up Roku actually shows what i have said, which is the point you keep missing. yes, they apparently had 100 million in the bank. but just like i said, i believe a couple times now, that is not all of their money. it is however the largest percentage of a company's cash i have seen so far for a large company like them. and yes while 100 mill is a lot, it is still only 26%, so only about 1/4 of their cash. which is why, while it might hurt to loose that 100 mill, they still apparently have about 300 million, in other banks. and the reason companies and the really rich put their money into several different banks is and always has been to protect them from exactly this. in fact most large companies i have seen only had somewhere under 10% of their cash in this bank, so the reality is they could loose it all, without much harm to them. and they do it, because they have always clearly known that only $250,000 in any account was insured. so in fact they are actually prepared to loose all but that $250,000 from any of their accounts.

so they certainly are not going to "run the banks". the ones most likely to do that, are the ones that would be pretty much covered not just by covering only up to five million, but the fact is the ones most likely to cause a bank run, are the ones that don't even have $250,000. so while they may start to check that their accounts are insured, and appropriately leaving a bank, or account not covered by the insurance. something that the banks have been actually wanting to happen, which is what all the commercials talking about that insurance, are actually for. to cause people to check if they are covered or not (and have been doing these commercials, for at least months (only been back in North America a little over a year), and thus leave banks that are not covered and move to the bigger banks which are insured. so that is yet another point, it can't be a big problem of people leaving banks, when they have been trying to get people to do it through commercials, that they pay for.

and the simple fact is people should be keeping an eye on how their bank operates, and leave if they think the bank is weak or in trouble. something people WILL start doing anyway, regardless if people and companies loose money or not, forget about how much. because it is just the news of a failure of a bank, is what causes the problem (an even bigger issue for any depression survivors still alive, just as the panic the 2008 recession caused them,like my grandmother who was convinced just off of the news of it happening, that it was happening again. and when she died, we found cash hidden away everywhere because of her panic, even though she didn't loose a penny. an understandable problem when you remember that as a child, her father lost everything, because of the depression and no one being able to pay what they owed. and i have heard many such stories of that type of thing from that recession). so that damage is pretty much already done, and i am sure we will see people at the bank in a few hours to get their money as it is. in fact i bet if you looked a lot of ATMs are empty right now, that normally wouldn't be. especially in California.

and i understand that panic, i felt it myself when i heard about this bank failing. since i am currently in the start of the process to get my stock back (which i really need to sell some off right now, as i'm desperate for that money), that was stolen from me, and given to a (random??) state. all because i never received any letter that apparently they sent because i hadn't touched my stock in years, as i had been leaving it alone to grow. so yes, i am just a bit concerned by this bank failure and any cascade effects from it.

a reply to: Violater1

What are you MAGAsters rambling on about now?
Biden has done the bestest economic recovery ever. Everything is fine and stable. Nothing to worry about.

a reply to: interupt42

The Biden Admin is doing what China wants. Setting up our economy to make it even easier and more lucrative for CHINA to take over what will be the FORMER U.S. Energy Industry.

Source: www.foxbangor.com... -5dfb-b4a9-91b34237c063.html

We have GOT TO get Democrats out of the White House and the Senate ASAP. Especially the White House, where China is directly controlling Puppet President, Joe Biden.