Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | drgath's comments login

Seems likely it’s all there.

https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23016.html

> As of December 31, 2022, Silicon Valley Bank had approximately $209.0 billion in total assets and about $175.4 billion in total deposits. At the time of closing, the amount of deposits in excess of the insurance limits was undetermined. The amount of uninsured deposits will be determined once the FDIC obtains additional information from the bank and customers.


Yes, issue for the depositors is how long it might take. Digging through the closed banks history at the FDIC is fascinating - https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/

Sometimes up to ~75% of the funds is paid out within weeks of collapse, but for some banks it’s only 10 or so percent. Most of the time it seems to end up with over 90% being paid out (sometimes it’s 100%), but the payments can come over ten or more years!

Often seems to be one within weeks, one in the next month or two, and then the payments seem to start coming every three or so years.


Well, if depositors can wait 10 years, they will absolutely get 100% back. The assets are worth more than the deposits right now if they aren’t sold in a fire sale.

The problem now is that startups need the money quicker than 10 years. But to sell everything now means a giant haircut.


"assets" are the dollar amounts of the loans you have issued. what those "assets" are actually worth is a completely different number.


Have we yet deviated from FDIC rules? I don’t think so, even with what Yellen says. My limited understanding of the situation is that the assets to cover everything is there, they’re just tied up in long-term treasuries.

From the FDIC’s site:

> As of December 31, 2022, Silicon Valley Bank had approximately $209.0 billion in total assets and about $175.4 billion in total deposits.

For simplicities sake, let’s just assume 100% of the assets are actually there, but it’ll just take varying years for everything to mature. So, what’s next? FDIC finds a buyer for the assets, perhaps a private bank or a a pseudo-government body who has the ability to wait till maturity, and in the meantime, everyone gets all their deposits. That’s not a “bailout”, and is following the rules.


Magically using billions of federal money to hold assets to maturity is a bailout. If hypothetical JPMorgan is willing to pay for the (ie) bonds $20B, but they "support" $25B of deposits... that $5B is a bailout. Even if in 10 years those bonds would be worth $25B.


> So, what’s next? FDIC finds a buyer for the assets, perhaps a private bank or a a pseudo-government body who has the ability to wait till maturity, and in the meantime, everyone gets all their deposits.

Yes, that's happens in the ideal case. However, due to the rise in interest rates, the market value of SVB's assets is likely lower than $175B at the moment; so it might prove challenging for FDIC to find a buyer for these assets at the required price to give everyone their deposits back. Even well-capitalized entities that have the capital to refund depositors now and the ability to wait till maturity will not pay the face value for these bonds, as they can get a better return by investing that money somewhere else (such as treasuries).


> the market value of SVB's assets is likely lower than $175B at the moment

Deposits are less, too. We won’t have a good picture of their balance sheet until later.


That's true, I should've said that the market value of SVB's assets is likely lower than their deposits at the moment. Of course we don't know for sure, but if the market value of assets exceeded deposits, they wouldn't have had to close down.


> we don't know for sure, but if the market value of assets exceeded deposits, they wouldn't have had to close down

They would have borrowed at the Fed’s discount window if it did. That’s the systemic solution to illiquidity. The FDIC is a fix for insolvency.


the ability to wait till maturity = takes billions in losses


ctrl+f “yql” and landed here. Was an amazing service for its time. Could even execute server-side JS in its engine (Rhino). Certainly the only E4X environment I ever coded in.


Asking someone to spend $400+ just to upgrade equipment in order to support a service that doesn’t work well on the original equipment you sold them, takes some guts.


It's sarcasm


In 15 years as a professional software engineer, I’ve never worked somewhere that wasn’t heavily using IRC, Hipchat, or Slack. The conversations are identical, the only thing that has changed is the service being used. As previous poster alluded to, your complaints aren’t a Slack issue, it’s a co-worker issue.


The nice thing about pre-Slack was that there was a bozo filter: the only people who could bother you were the people who could figure out how to use an IRC client.


Also 15 years professional here; And I agree, it's largely similar.

One difference though is that IRC doesn't have a @here equivalent. People do like to overuse that one in particular. (you can turn it off but the default is frustrating and the UX is poor for disabling)


This lack can be fixed by the amazing dau irssi plugin.


Totally agree on that! Sometimes we're so focused to the product we ignore who is using it.


No, it’s Slack. My company was IRC based and moved to Slack. It’s changed working patterns.


To the same degree? I disagree there. I would never expect a full-stack engineer to be more proficient at front-end when compared to a FE specialist. You are expected to know some, but not to the same degree. That’s the reason they are specialists, in comparison.


Yeah, if a company is interviewing full-stack devs at the same level as they do front- or back-end specialists, they probably have a severe shortage of full-stack folks (bar too high) or a glut of mediocre specialists (bar too low).


I wonder though, how can you be a frontend specialist when you don't even know how backend and servers work?



Which used to support a similar usage (select from url) but no longer does.


Yeah, html table is deprecated :(


They’re about to IPO. Doesn’t mean they’re profitable, but it does mean their finances are healthy enough that they can be publicly traded.


They already IPO’d. :-)


> Being overworked is an excellent reason to hire. It shows that you are about to lose your team due to burn-out or extended sick leave.

I took the original comment to imply that when employees are overworked, it is due to a failure in planning to assure a project is adaquately staffed from the beginning. That is when you should hire, not because you just began to notice you failed to plan appropriately.

Sure, if someone is being overworked, hire to spread the load (if new person can ramp-up fast enough). But don’t put your employees in that position to begin with, because some of them won’t return to full productivity, even after you resolve the problem. Overwork for any duration comes at a cost.


Sling[1] is the closest we can get right now. Eventually, channel subscriptions will be available through something like an App Store and just as easy to manage as an recurring subscription app.

[1] https://www.sling.com/


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: