I am sure WSJ and other might, but frankly I have stopped listening to what many pundits and analysts have to say on the matter. Just reading the news on the SVB debacle is enough to affirm few know what they were talking about. Too many want to sell theater and use it to make a political statement and aren’t really concerned with the facts.Since you directed this at me….
I realize you were part of the Silicon Valley banking in its heyday When making longshot bets with VC guys was a big payoff. Companies that had no earnings were doubling and tripling every year or more On pure speculation. money was being splashed on crazy speculative stuff and the stock market would just suck it up.
Those days are over.…or cut way back….at least for now. In fact many of those high flyers with no earnings are going to go under. My bet is that when the list of - Yes- Sketchy loans comes out that SVB is holding, it will be an eye opener.
We cannot just gloss over fundamentals…this is a bank…not some speculative high tech fund where folks realize their money is invested in higher risk assets. Depositors in banks use that money, many need it liquid and available …and they EXPECT to get their money back…not have it hanging out there.
The bank can’t hold a 30 year note paying +/-2% to maturity…they have to mark to market…those bonds dropped like a rock leaving them under capitalized….the regulators would have had to step in…though in this political environment…all bets are off.
If one is invested in a Cathie Woods ETF, they understand there will be risk. This bank was in deals with startup companies incurring huge losses that were far riskier than even her investments.
My bet- and call me if you want to make a friendly wager- grin….
Is that when the list of risk assets that SVB was carrying comes out, the legit finance publications like WSJ will essentially blast them for those Risky loans.
Maybe lunch at our half way point? I have to warn you I’m a big eater. Grin
One things that will come out is that the venture portfolio will make it very difficult for a big commercial bank to buy those assets. But that is not because they are money-bad deals, but due to the risk grading of the borrowers causing them to be special mention assets.
In my working days I managed the account of a non-bank venture debt lender whose largest competitor was SVB. We were the lead lender in its financing syndicate for two funds and participants in 2 others. This gave me access to the firm’s performance from before the ‘08 recession through ‘20 so I have some insight into how that market works and the historical returns venture debt portfolios yielded. There are undoubtedly losers in any fund/portfolio, but the equity component makes it so just a few winners can carry the whole lot. Not one fund had a negative return, even through’08-‘11.
I am pretty certain the same is true with SVB even up to now. My power and WiFi have been out and reading K’s and Q’s on a phone isn’t worth it, but I will post up some details of historical performance when nice we are back up and I can use my laptop. There is no reason to believe performance would have markedly degarded and very well may have improved with the increased discipline we saw from VC’s through the pandemic.
Edit: I did want to comment on the bolded. Customers should expect banks will preserve their deposits, but only neophytes would expect that banks should have all client’s funds liquid and available at all times. That simply isn’t how banks work - and it was that sophomoric expectation that broke SVB. That is one aspect to tech companies that I do not miss - lots of highly educated 20 and 30-somethings that had grand ideas but little grounding in reality. I often had to be the adult in the room - not a very fun balancing act.
Last edited:

