skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually a lot of depositors would be happy with a narrow bank that takes no risk, just holds the money at the Fed. But the Fed decided it's too safe so narrow banking is essentially banned. Seems fair if they ensure safety of deposits in return.
> The legislation will leave fewer than 10 big banks in the United States subject to stricter federal oversight, freeing thousands of banks with less than $250 billion in assets from a post-crisis crackdown that they have long complained is too onerous.

> Once the bill is signed by Mr. Trump, small and medium-sized banks will no longer be required to undergo “stress tests” aimed at measuring their ability to withstand a severe economic downturn.

Would the current situation have been prevented/mitigated if not for the repeal?
One reason why it's not (mostly) a bailout is that SVB's deposits are (as far as we know) still backed by bonds and mortgage backed securities, the problem is that those securities can't be easily sold right now (because people want higher valued investments) - a sudden forced sale means selling at a loss (or a cash flow crisis which is how SVB got into this state), holding on to them and letting them play out and they still have their value (worst case you sell them at a loss that is the difference between what they yield and what current investments yield)
> Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.

Not convinced both those statements can be true.
There are insuring agreements that can cover this kind of risk. It ought to be a part of any risk-management program.
VC insider types won this one in some sense but at the cost of some credibility (those most hysterically yelling om twitter at least)
I don't see how this usage means that I will have to subsidize risks in the future. That usage implies the way to reduce exposure is literally for companies to spread their assets so any given bank run doesn't impact many of their assets. That is, they have to actually reduce their risk.
The 1st scenario and things similar to the 2nd happen in script development.
The answer to your question is pretty simple, actually; the "we" would would let SVB depositors fail are also the same "we" that compose the voters and participants in the US economy who would be harmed by letting SVB depositors lose out on their money.

Allowing people to starve and die isn't really in the best interest of the very people who would starve and die, so... "we" won't let that happen.
Regarding the workers of SVB itself, I'm not sure what will happen once the receiver process is finished, but for now workers are being given 1.5x pay by the FDIC for staying on. Hopefully they'll be able to stay on afterwards via an acquiring bank.
Not saying anything tongue in cheek. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-...
Well, it certainly feels more grokkable than the haskell one. It’s like understanding is at the tip of my tongue instead of forever out of reach.

Still don’t understand anything though.
What risks were taken by SVB? From what I understood, all the investments were in very safe ones.
Premiums aren't paid by the banks. The banks aren't printing money. The premiums are paid by those using the bank. The sleight-of-hand wording is great for swaying preception but it an unacceptable deviation from transparency.

It's like the saying "...paid for by a grant from the Federal Government..." Nah. It was - one way or another - paid for by taxpayers.
Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee
"This thing I don't understand reminds me of another thing I don't understand, so it's bad I decided."
Not every OS supports cancel-able file IO, but they all support closing the file outright, which will get this behavior of canceling all IO against the file.
Depositors shouldn't have piled all their assets into one bank because it was paying slightly more interest. Not saying every depositor did that here, but many did.
> it's 100% or jail

Says who?
Can't wait to start seeing their tweets railing about how unfair student debt relief is.
> bad treasury management

There are lots of ways for a startup to die. If you have $2m cash do you really want to manage (2/0.25) bank accounts, adopt all that administrative overhead, just to reduce your probability of death by bank failure, when possibly the added overhead may increase your overall probability of death because now you are distracted and unfocused on the things that are far more likely to kill you?

> If we're going to spend billions of dollars on improving the safety net, I think startups are way, way down the list of priorities.

This is first order thinking which increases systemic risk by undermining trust. The probability of future bank runs goes up.

> Three, among startups, market-driven disruption is practically a religion. Startups destroy existing companies all the time. Quite often it's an explicit goal, where startup X lists existing players A and B as companies whose lunches will get eaten because they are making bad choices. > Four, there has been endless puffery and chest-thumping among VCs and tech startups how their genius justifies pocketing billions and billions of dollars when times are good. Best and brightest, incredibly hard workers, blah blah blah. Including a special tax exemption for VCs, because they're just such amazing financial wizards.

You're making broad generalizations about a large group of heterogeneous agents. You're also using language that's full of moral judgement (revenge, disgust) instead of focusing on stuff that matters to the economy or to everyday people.

> But it's not a problem for taxpayers to solve.

Why not? Taxpayers exist to fund things that are thought to be in the public good. And isn't it a lack of imagination to think that taxpayers are the only way to solve this? What about clawback of executive compensation or shareholder dividends?
VCs themselves could have fixed this problem (that they, in part, created) and some of them did but many did not.
Thanks for being more precise than the FED statement :-) Yes it's there, but not for the purpose used here. Contracts have clauses, but there is also the so called spirit of the law and it can be made to work in legal cases.

(5)Emergency special assessments

In addition to the other assessments imposed on insured depository institutions under this subsection, the Corporation may impose 1 or more special assessments on insured depository institutions in an amount determined by the Corporation if the amount of any such assessment is necessary—

(A)to provide sufficient assessment income to repay amounts borrowed from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1824(a) of this title in accordance with the repayment schedule in effect under section 1824(c) of this title during the period with respect to which such assessment is imposed;

(B)to provide sufficient assessment income to repay obligations issued to and other amounts borrowed from insured depository institutions under section 1824(d) of this title; or

(C)for any other purpose that the Corporation may deem necessary.
It doesn't take a CPA to know that depositing above 250k comes with increased risk. And I think you're kind of conflating types of consumers here. People depositing above that limit are generally not working from the same limitations and lack of information that regular people are.
"Too big to fail" is such a bullshit argument, and doesn't make it any less of a bailout at taxpayer expense. Finance is structured so that every time this happens, it just so happens to be a forced choice between a bailout and "nice economy you have there, it'd be a shame if something happened to it..."
I wish I still owned my Apple IIc. I sold it for chump change 30 years ago.
Basically, but I don't think any flight that is 20 hours long has a sleeper train route.
There is a volume mixer; see the button 'Settings' in the top-right corner.
I daresay the forest of types to validate our endpoint input/output is intimidating to many, but this post is on a whole different level.
Why should there be risks? If someone just wants to park some cash without it possibly disappearing, that seems like a solvable problem. E.g. as the parent said, central banks could simply offer accounts to anybody.
What did VCs do wrong here? They warned of impending solvency problems at SVB and told founders to withdraw their money ASAP. And indeed, the bank failed the next day. The companies in trouble are those who didn't listen to the VCs.
> For some sily reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke.

1. silly reason

2. It's a joke

It looks like you just found your silly reason.

The greed of startups have evolved to become bigger and bigger as years pass by.

The romanticizing of startups came from propaganda. It's just that some of us were too young and naive to understand the puppetmaster while others had seen the puppeteer before...
The founders and employees deserve credit, the VCs not so much. They were the ones primarily driving the fearmongering.
> just like it shouldn't test the the food it's buying for toxicity.

Well I may have to if I buy food from a "innovator", "disruptor", "visionary" store that sells steaks at $2/lb and chicken at 99c/lb
Pretty sad that computations on types look like C++98 in Typescript when C++ itself has moved on to have much more concise ways of performing computations on types in C++11 and 14 (see boost hana).
Can you explain how this is not a dupe? It's a joint statement and the words are literally the same.
That’s not true at all. The strategy is this:

1) form a bank

2) make imprudent investments, and offer better terms than other banks

3) watch the deposits roll in

4) collect fat bonuses every year

5) fifteen years later, get taken over by the FDIC

6) no need to return bonuses

7) other banks want to hire executives from failed banks, go do it again somewhere else
I could not write this stuff. It looks simple but it isn't.

I played with Sebastian Ulrich's Lean 4 Port of Conor Mc Bride's Agda Code.

( bottom of https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-gener... )
( View in Playground (right top corner))

I got stuck here:

/-- Operational and denotational semantics coincide. -/

theorem eval_eval : x ~>* (eval x).embed := by

My intuition is: evaluating in Lean and embedding the result in the toy language is identical to big step evaluation in the toy language.

But I can't parse the theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics#Abstrac...
Oh right, the money comes from… inflation.

What are you talking about?
SVB Saga Conclusion (For Now)
We weren’t dumping money, SVB was our primary bank where sales we’re collected. It’s not hard to exceed 250k after 10 years of operations.

We weren’t getting any interest % on our deposit balance, the only reason we chose SVB was because it was recommended for Startups.
I believed that VCs and startups were mostly good people trying to do the right thing.

But what we've seen in the last few days is utterly despicable behaviour by many of the leading figures driven solely by greed and self-interest.

I think increasingly startups will look to bootstrap in the coming years.
Since SVB's deposits were solvent, there isn't an actual loss here as long as it encourages people to not withdraw money early. They collapsed because everyone asked for it too fast.

What would be expensive would be paying for everyone getting laid off after SVB depositors can't make payroll.
Uninsured assets are what they sound like: uninsured. That's why companies typically hold a minimum amount of their assets as cash, and the cash they do hold isn't typically concentrated in one place. Credit risk is a huge aspect of financial management. If you don't manage risk you get losses. The "small business" sympathy campaign is typical of situations like these (pretty much touted in every bank failure) to justify public spending for private losses. The public doesn't get profit from company risk (particularly for tax dodging/low employment tech companies), it should not be expected to take the losses.
Yeah, Peter Thiel donates to the Republicans but he so quick on the draw he got his money out in time to not need a baiout.
If you're a competing bank in that sector (like First Republic, for example), why wouldn't you pay full price for the good will and customer list? Even if you end up having to (potentially) pay 5% of the assets over time, that's a small price to pay to take over the entire market of startup customers overnight.
Those people normally claim they don't know how the economy works.

"Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of" - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-c...
> Space is big.

Satellites are usually in orbit, not randomly in a space, so your target is to make a mess from that given orbit, not to try to mess up whole space.
Yellen and the FDIC have just made a disastrous long term mistake for the country.

1. By next month banks and companies will realize there is no limit to the printer at all. After 2008, we've seen the banks and financial sector misbehave constantly, so expect massive deliberate tanking of entire sectors of the economy because why work when infinity bail money exists.

2. People in the country are already agitated by many social and economic grievances. The average American savings account balance is $4,500. This will one million percent cause a social backlash that will make the Trump movement seem like a child's party. Both the left and right radicals view silicon valley as the center of fascism/wokism, and the average person is barely scrapping by in a time of rampant grocery store inflation. Twitter/Reddit/Etc are full of people taking pictures of their grocery store carts and comparing costs.

Examples need to be made to restore faith in the system, Yellen and the Biden could have used this moment to restore faith by punishing the banking executives.

Political instability and extremism will now increase dramatically.
I used to believe it until about 7 years ago, when I started to build an open source alternative to the rentseeking Big Tech industry. Too much of Web2 and Web3 was based around the profit motive, and no one stuck around long enough to replicate their stack and give it to the people:

https://github.com/Qbix/Platform

https://github.com/Intercoin

I believe in gift economies (science, wikipedia, open source) being superior to capitalism and private ownership of platforms.

Instead of Zuck, Elon and Bezos we could use more Linus, TimBernereLee and Vitalik.
Glorifying founders has always been stupid, they're all trying to get rich, not exactly a noble cause. It's not something to demonize them for either, but founder worship is kinda gross.
The only reason they stepped in to protect these depositors was because their investors were politically connected and powerful and they stood to lost billions.
Yes, long-term treasuries which for years had been at very low interest rates. You're certainly right that they shouldn't have done that, but it doesn't invalidate GP's point.
I wish that MS Office -

if I use a dash on line one of some work - like this, the second line's dash is completely different (even when using columns.

So, I really don't trouble myself with the whole idea of "The primary importance of using the correct dashes is that it preserves a good flow for reading and is paramount to micro-typographic balance: ".
Confidence in property rights? Not sure what you are talking about. They just provided guaranteed non-negative returns on loans. Put your dollars in a safety deposit box if you want property rights. Depositors need to be able to accept a haircut for banking to function, that's why you get interest and don't pay the bank.
It's not great, but I don't see who else is supposed to cover this. The depositors? Not only does that seem unfair, that would destroy faith in banks -- and then where would banks be? Even worse off than paying an assessment. Simply having the privilege to participate legally in the fractional-reserve system seems plenty profitable for them, and I think they'll grumble and pay rather than be left out of the game.

The only alternative would be if bank shares could go negative, i.e., if bank shareholders could become liable. Maybe Switzerland did/does work like this? Then you might not want to hold those shares without also buying a cheap $0-strike PUT from an insurer. But arguably that's what's happening here in the end anyway, just with the FDIC in that insurer role.

I think the government did the right thing here.
Thinking the young people in the USA have the competency, discipline, means, and determination to even organize, let alone threaten “political stability” is a stretch. This has been happening for 20 years.
The hole - if any - should be much less than $300bn.

(But sure, there is a huge overlap between taxpaxers and banking clients/shareholders.)
Good thing some adults are in charge, and not HackerNews.
> "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law."

This has happened before in 2008. Secretary Yellen's announcement is important to secure depositor confidence, so the contagion doesn't spread to more banks. If depositors are confident that the government has their back, there's no reason to pull money out.
Plebs will just pay $0.10 more for a gallon of milk. Nothing to see here
Thanks for the context. Looks like a cool product and (as someone who hates cookie banners) I'm excited to see more GDPR compliant providers.
Not a lawyer but a lawyer once attempted to explain this common legalese pattern to me. Here’s my terrible attempt:

It’s not like a programming type system where C widens the type to make A and B meaningless. It’s that A and B are communicating intent. “It’s meant for these things… and maybe something else we don’t yet know.” Apparently this is important if you ever had to fight over it.
20 hours is enough time to take off, eat dinner, get drunk, pass out, sleep late, wake up, and realize YOU'RE STILL ON THE FUCKING PLANE.
VCs Group-A (who knew something) rushed the bank.

VCs Group-B to Z were too late so they asked Govt to help them.

It's not just founders who put their money there, VC funds are there as well and they are probably close to 100% uninsured (cause it's the Fund Series I - XXX).

If you get your hands on the list of depositors, you'll see the list of Funds Series from VCs.
If this represented a systemic risk, I will eat my hat. This reeks of influence peddling, particularly given the significant growth in lobbying over the past two decades by the very kinds of people invested here.
Why should that be embarrassing?

Because they preached for years that regulation is bad, and the government shouldn't be involved in their financial affairs.

Then when something went wrong, they begged for a bailout from the very regulators they disdained: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/urgent-sign-the-petition-no...
They might as well be FAANG employees if they're so risk averse that they can't deal with such casual occurrences as their dang banks failing.
Why should they not get credit for taking risks or doing something new? How is that related at all? The risks they take are based on the viability of their product. It was never (supposed to be) based on the risk of if their banking institution could provide them with their cash as needed. None of that has changed.
Most people that I have come across who are not experienced in tech startups seem to have some kind of holy image of VCs. They seem to think they're all "rich and successful". They think it is some kind of highly esteemed job to possess. Contrastingly, people who have been in the startup game for years know that VCs are just salespeople, and a great majority of them lose other peoples' money while just raking in a normal salary.
Nobody used SVB because it paid more interest. (It didn't pay interest at all in fact.)

They did it because the name was cool or because other banks wouldn't give you an account for your startup at all. It's normal to go for a regional bank when regular ones don't understand your business.
They invoked this exception repeatedly during the financial crisis and fees did not go up in response. In fact, they all but disappeared.
I was never trying to talk about levels of success. There's nothing wrong with (to use your example) being involved as a teacher, or in sports management, at college.

I meant more the fact that even at least one of the pro sports leagues tries to remind even people who are doing extremely well in the sport, that as well as they've done, that next step as a player is going to be even harder. So to not neglect things in single-minded pursuit of "I'm going to the NBA" (because you're probably not).
> you might as well say: why are we even kerning fonts [...] is paramount to micro-typographic balance [...] is visually perceived as an interruption [...] won't preserve optical balance

These are typesetters concerns, not writers concerns. They are all context sensitive tweaks to what amounts to the same glyph.

If the rules for each have as well defined contexts as the article suggests, then it sounds like something more suited to ligatures and kerning.

Full glyph replacement ligatures were not something initially supported by all font formats, so perhaps the fact that they continuing to exist as separate characters is more of a historical detail. It's something that could easily be added with new fonts though.
I don't know about LA, but there is a branch open on Saturday 9-12 in Menlo Park. Most of the branches are not open on Saturdays though.
An equally silly error would be concluding that all VCs are like this. Although we heard absolutely unhinged and insane panic from a few (like Jason Calacanis), and some milquetoast statements from others (Redpoint), we heard no panic from the largest players.

I won't reshare anecdotes here, but I heard stories over the weekend about intense and direct conversations between the largest VCs and the Fed.
so all other bank customers (who are taxpayers also) will pay indirectly through higher FDIC insurance rates/commissions, right ?
When Lehman Brothers collapsed, the associated insurance payouts totaled ~$100 billion.
... like you use the application in a web browser here, the main link is to the source code.