undefined | Better HN

0 pointstaeric3y ago0 comments

But that happened? The very rich entity that held the assets was literally dissolved. With all shareholders in SVB wiped out.

The depositors, to be clear, NEVER held the assets under question. They deposited money into the bank that let the bank purchase the assets. At that point, the depositors are not assets of the bank, but liabilities.

Now, the bank's assets dropped in value so that they could not cover their obligations to their depositors. The bank was dissolved accordingly, with their assets sold to another bank. You are wanting to also have their liabilities dissolved, such that the depositors are also somehow punished?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

pessimizer3y ago· 1 in thread

> The depositors, to be clear, NEVER held the assets under question. They deposited money into the bank that let the bank purchase the assets. At that point, the depositors are not assets of the bank, but liabilities.

You're saying two opposing things here. The depositors put money into the bank in return for interest payments. They're liabilities to the bank, not to themselves. They hold bank debt.

taericOP3y ago

I'm not following you. I never said they were liabilities to themselves? The depositors are liabilities of the bank, as the bank is obligated to return the money.

I can remove all pronouns from what I wrote. "The depositors, to be clear, NEVER held the assets under question. The depositors deposited money into the bank that let the bank purchase the assets. At that point, the depositors are not assets of the bank, but liabilities.

Now, the bank's assets dropped in value so that the bank could not cover the banks obligations to their depositors. The bank was dissolved accordingly, with the banks assets sold to another bank. You are wanting to also have the banks liabilities dissolved, such that the depositors are also somehow punished?"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse