Tons of VCs had their assets there too. It could lead to serious ramifications, anyone with substantially more than $250k in that bank is out a lot and only time will tell how much they’ll be able to recoup. It’s not an FTX situation, the assets are somewhat there, but the losses in securities look extreme and unwinding them at a fair price may take months, if not years
The VC fund only has a tiny fraction of their fund as cash because most of it is loaned to to their portfolio companies, which have it in cash at the bank their VC partners told them to (because you can't pay payroll with Tbills), which, to a large degree (judging from the comments on the thread from last night) was SVB. It's going to be brutal for every company who didn't get their funds out before this morning's announcement, not to mention the possible contagion risks.
Yes, the companies will be screwed but that’s not what I meant.
What I meant by VCs have a tiny fraction of their fund as cash is that cash is held by LPs and is called upon only when the VC funds a startup. When a VC raises a $1B fund they don’t get the money, they get commitment that the money will be available. So this means that this failure shouldn’t affect VCs ability to invest in the future as most LPs didn’t hold their money in SVB.
That's right. Although there is an interesting thing to consider: if you look at page 13 of the deck they shared on Wednesday[1], it says 56% of SVB's total loans are in the form of lines of credit issued to PE/VC funds, secured by their LP commitments. I imagine many if not most of those are fairly small in size, but it's possible some funds took out much larger lines of credit, secured by their future LP commitments, and were holding that cash at SVB. So we could definitely see some funds affected to varying extents.
What is this? Does this mean that if PensionFundFoo invests in VCFundX as a LP, that PensionFundFoo never actually has to fork over cash to VCFundX to give to StartupZ? Does this mean SVB accepted PensionFundFoo's commitment to VCFundX as collateral and gave a loan to VCFundX to invest in StartupZ?
Yeah, more the latter. VCFundX goes out and raises capital for a new fund, which includes PensionFundFoo as one of the LPs, and once closed, goes to SVB and says, 'hey look we have $100M in signed LP commitments for this fund we just closed' and SVB says 'great - we'll set up a line of credit for you at [x]% of that $100M that you can draw down now (or later) to do with what you want' (obviously to invest in startups, but that would also include their management fees which GPs can pull forward and use to fund their lifestyles and/or invest). And then the future capital calls from LPs, including PensionFundFoo, go to SVB to pay down any amount of that loan outstanding.
The majority of VCs use this product simply to help smooth working capital needs and to be able to make new investments without needing to call capital sooner than LPs would prefer (also to juice IRRs), but there's almost certainly some minority that have basically taken an advance on their entire fund size, or at least a large portion of it. And now any of that cash still held at SVB is obviously at risk.
At the very step of funding, do LPs wire the money to a single bank (SVB) and then the VC dispurses it to the startup in one lump sum? Or do the LBs wire the money to the startup's bank account (at SVB)?
I've heard that UHNW individuals also individually banked with SVB. Wouldn't they have their money at SVB?
Also, wouldn't the VC's long-term relationship w/ SVB give them (the VCs and the startup they're funding) much more leeway with what the bank considers acceptable behavior (ie not money laundering and worth filing an SAR over)? Now that those relationships are gone and the VC has to go through the front door and deal with, say, BankOfAmerica or Chase like the rest of us chumps; doesn't the loss of that relationship materially hurt the broader environment?
Oh for sure. LPs would wire money to SVB and that money may be frozen/will be returned at less than par. Loss of relationship will also hurt. But for the biggest funds LPs are like pension funds, and that money will be available. One thing to consider is that VCs may need to call on their LPs to recapitalize their existing portcos which may leave less space for new investment.
I see it as very different from FTX. In SVB there was no fraud and no criminal wrongdoing; there may be no moral wrongdoing either. SVB was a chartered bank, subject to all regulation and reserve balance rules that other banks follow. As far as we know they followed all regulation to a letter.
Two things got SVB down. First, a rapid change in interest rate got their assets repriced down. It did not need to be fatal, this happens to all banks when interest rates rise quickly.
Second, its customers did a ran and went to pull their money. If all depositors of the BoA or Chase pull money out, those banks will collapse, too. This is highly unlikely for the BoA -- if folks start saying that BoA will collapse most depositors would shrug it off; the diversity of its base will make a run highly unlikely.
But as SVB was a much smaller bank and had a lot of similar customers (startups advised by similar VCs) the ran was seen as plausible at which point it was over -- customers pulled enough money to kill the bank. This is the price we pay for the flexibility of the current banking system that allows people to get loans and free checking accounts. My 2c.
To be fair, it sounds like some shockingly negligent management on SVB's part. Obviously thats orders of magnitude off from the complete lack of management w/ SBF.
There may be no moral wrongdoing but it seems quite dumb to be so heavily in securities that massively lose value when rates go up and rates are at historic lows, no?
The only job for these execs was to know which way the wind is blowing and they showed themselves to be not much better than every other rabid fool that bought GME etc. thinking things would never change and bull runs and low rates would last forever.
My reading is that the long term book value of those assets is bigger than the deposits. And now that the deposits are withdrawn, SVB ahs to liquidate thise assets at current market value, which is (maybe?) lower than deposits. So, at the least, it looks like a strange risk management approach on behalf of SVB. And those clients that kept most of their money at this one, single bank.
There is a very large difference between FTX and SVB. The people behind FTX will probably go to jail because they committed crimes and effectively stole money. SVB mismanaged interest rate risk and ended up on the wrong side of interest rate hikes. They had similar results of people quickly trying to pull all their money out, but it's not "exactly an FTX situation".
