Talk:Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

I added the following to the "Reactions" section:

Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus said, "I think that the system, that the administration has pushed many of these banks into [being] more concerned about global warming than they do about shareholder return. And these banks are badly run because everybody is focused on diversity and all of the woke issues and not concentrating on the one thing they should, which is, shareholder returns."^[1]

User:Soibangla removed it. I think the quote is notable. Fox News is a reliable source when it comes to quoting someone's opinion. The opinion itself may be questionable, but there is no doubt that the person said those words. I think it should be put back in. What do others think? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No need to indulge clickbait nonsense like this. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I blame the wokeness on anything??? SWinxy (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bernie Marcus' opinion isn't relevant to the collapse. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Many of the reactions are opinionated - why remove just this one? (I/me) 24.12.62.252 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcus' opinion is utterly disconnected from the actual mechanisms and causes of the collapse; SVB's liquidity issues have nothing to do with wokeness and everything to do with concentrated interest rate risk. It shouldn't be included. (I also edited the original post here to make the indents etc clearer and to remove a duplicate signature line.) Ifly6 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox is also running a summary of Republican presidential candidates' reactions to the bank's failure. I cited this article for two of the candidates' responses regarding solutions, which are similar to views already mentioned in the article, but I held off on Trump in case folks here think his more partisan response regarding the cause of the failure would be less relevant. Feel free to mention it if it would be appropriate. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses everyone. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That series template's kind of morbid tbh. Couldn't it wait even until the failure count for 2019 or 2020 (four each) was exceeded? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much if any reporting on the purpose of Silicon Valley Bank N. A., which came out of nowhere overnight.

is it a bridge to a new permanent Silicon Valley Bank N.A., or a bridge to ultimate liquidation, which was the plan yesterday? soibangla (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a bridge to whatever resolution the FDIC determines to be appropriate after it has had time to make a determination. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, but how is it different from the previous structure? soibangla (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's different from the structure of the failed SVB because it doesn't have the non-deposit liabilities and does have the backstop of the Deposit Insurance Fund. It's different from the DINB plan because it can use cash flow from the failed bank's assets to meet deposits, which a DINB cannot do. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is titled, "GOP blames Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on ‘ESG’ policies. Here’s what to know."

My previous attempt at addressing this subject was dismissed because my only source was Fox News.

Now that the Washington Post has reported on it, I think it deserves additional consideration. The quote from Bernie Marcus that I cited from Fox News is not included in this piece from the Washington Post, but the same general idea is mentioned. I think something from this could improve the article. I'd be curious to hear what others think.

Original Washington Post article, which is (in some cases) behind a paywall: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/14/svb-esg-woke-investing/

Google archive of the same article: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ClGoILiJvYJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/14/svb-esg-woke-investing/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

MSN publication of the same article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/why-the-gop-is-blaming-silicon-valley-bank-s-collapse-on-woke-capitalism/ar-AA18BAQC

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your change quoted Marcus, giving his (wrong) reaction some sort of importance. It's better to say that conservatives blamed the failure on wokeism and that there is nothing to back up these claims, rather than repeating them. I'll add the WaPo article. SWinxy (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it! SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous discussion focused on the fact that Marcus's opinion was objectively incorrect, not that it was reported on by Fox News. This article does cite different Fox News and Fox Business articles, after all. Anyways, the main focus of the "Reactions" section is about calls for action and calm reassurances from relevant individuals. If we're going to cover speculation about the causes, the most informed speculation should probably go up in the "Collapse" section. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a sentence about this just for its comedic value. Fox News is pushing this stupidity hard. soibangla (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this article continue to include early statements, attributed to experts, that the failure was unlikely to pose a systemic risk? These are rather discredited in view of the impact on other institutions and opinions from the Treasury and the Fed that it did indeed. Although, perhaps one could say that the risk was not from the bank but illustrated by it. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be the point made by several commentators this past week, that the perception of risk began taking on a life of its own. But the word "systemic" is open to interpretation, so I qualified the sentence to be on the safe side. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 10:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

per this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1145958793&diffmode=source

Despite its growth in deposits, the bank struggled to find ways to make money off them. Banks typically invest customer deposits in a variety of assets that they can earn a return on, including a mix of long-term and short-term bonds issued by the government — a largely safe bet. But SVB decided that government debt that came due over 10 to 30 years — and offered higher interest rates at the time — was a better bet than shorter-duration bonds, which paid less interest, according to analysts. So it made an outsize bet on long-dated bonds, a lack of diversity that increased its risk.

soibangla (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That quotation does not justify the statement in the article "Seeking higher investment returns, in 2021 SVB began shifting its marketable securities portfolio from short-term to long-term Treasury bonds"

They took a 2021 surge in new deposits and invested them in long term bonds. There is nothing in your quote about them "shifting" anything. Wickorama (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of SVB's 10k filings shows that its HTM securities with 10y+ maturity ballooned in 2021 without any matching reduction in shorter term holdings. The increase was funded with deposit cash. I updated the wording. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Jainabhisu007, please stop adding unsourced content as you also did at 2023 United States banking crisis. I think these articles are stable and pretty much settled and don't need rewrites. Feel free to discuss here if you disagree. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that there are high-quality secondary sources on this bank failure – eg Metrick, Andrew (2024-02-01). "The Failure of Silicon Valley Bank and the Panic of 2023". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 38 (1): 133–152. doi:10.1257/jep.38.1.133. ISSN 0895-3309.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) – I think this article should be tagged {{primary sources}} and rewritten to reduce its (over-)reliance on contemporary news sources. Ifly6 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)