#svb-matters

[eximconsultants]

Special Valuation Branch Registration Cost in Delhi

Exim Consultants provides expert services for Special Valuation Branch (SVB) registration in Delhi at competitive costs. We specialize in handling SVB matters, ensuring smooth compliance with customs valuation rules for import transactions involving related parties. Our experienced team streamlines the registration process, minimizes delays, and offers personalized guidance to help businesses meet their trade requirements efficiently.

[living400lbs]

"The regional bank crisis that shocked the financial world this spring, which saw three of the largest bank failures in U.S. history, is still playing out, as consumers find it harder to get loans. Preventing a similar crisis should be top on Congress’s to-do list. So it is encouraging that lawmakers appear poised to adopt, in a bipartisan manner, a modest yet worthwhile measure to discourage future bank failures by making it easier for federal regulators to claw back pay from reckless executives.

...

Silicon Valley Bank, the first to fail, took excessive risks. It had an unusually high number of uninsured depositors, and it was slow to react to the fact that its assets had fallen substantially in value as the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates. SVB executives failed at Banking 101: ensuring there are enough assets to cover liabilities. SVB collapsed. The FDIC took it over and had to provide $20 billion from a government deposit insurance fund to rescue all depositors. SVB chief executive Greg Becker had lobbied Congress for years to loosen regulations on midsize banks like his. He also suspiciously sold more than $3.5 million in SVB stock shortly before the collapse. Yet he has faced few consequences beyond losing his job. The Recoup Act seeks to change that."

Gift link https://wapo.st/3XmAYNZ

[jinxisgaming]

Updated version: Before I say anything, I'm not supporting jutty taylor. This is just my opinion on the matter.

Now TW SA and suicide

So since I don't have the hell site Twitter anymore I didn't know about the sa allegations, I did see a few post here and there on here about how swiss would hurt jutty but didn't pay much to it at the time, but I have looked into it from outside sources mostly through comments from here and tiktok and from what I have seen people say ( once again I'm not supporting jutty) is that the "evidence" used which was a photo that ended up (rumored) being fake as it was a stolen photo from another fan and the fact that the meet and greet was 18+ only and she was 15 so how did she get in?

The photo thing brought back memories of when joseph quinn was accused of sa during LFCC 2024 (i think that was the year) in which the photo that was used was from another fan and then the sa ended being confirmed false by the girls ex friend discord message were she admits to lying about the SA.

I have seen so many false sa allegations in my life, especially on Twitter, to the point that it gets harder and harder for me to believe the would-be victims and saying this as a female as well. falsifying sa allegations ruins the chances of real victims getting help as they think no one will believe them with how many false sa allegations there have been, which is horrible, sa is no joke! Should never be used as a weapon against someone.

Update: i did look further, and I did see that she has apparently brought this to the police now from a tweet I've seen from the victim, which now makes it a possible police matter. I have tried looking for the photo that was used as evidence but couldn't find it, which makes me think it was deleted, and apparently, jutty had a crash out on Twitter as well. However, until the matter is solved by the police I am unable to know who to believe yet.

Update 2: I've looked further and saw a comment on a post about jutty not being at antwerp on reddit and that the investigation said there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case against the band member, Now i don't know if this is true, but that's all I found atm.

Now I've heard people saying they want jutty to off himself, and if the allegations were to come out as false and he did end up ending his life, you practically killed an innocent man, please keep your comments to your self until more details come out.

Saying these things is not helping the situation! I know wanting to express hatred, but please keep these types of comments to yourself until more details come out! I know the saying "always believe the victim" but also take it with a grain of salt, especially if the accusations are coming from that hell site. Now I'm not saying I don't believe the victim but also don't fully go by what they say and to look into it throughly at all the evidence they have put instead of instantly believing them.

If you want an example of why i am saying this, here's a video on a situation that happened years ago to SVB:

https://youtu.be/iIXcfCsvnCM?si=GJyBOGvVKPmcI8EN

And also look up the inquisitor false allegations that ended up with him sadly ending his life live on tiktok.

Update 3 Found the photo:

Now, from what I have seen, this is the only evidence of the allegations against jutty as I did try to see if there was more, but this was the only evidence presented by the girl, now from were his hands would be is a little dark but I think they might be behind his back. I did try to look for the apparent allegations from his exs but couldn't locate them, but if anyone has them, please send them to me so I can look them over.

Update 4: So there's rumours going around that swiss/jutty taylor has quit ghosts. I'm not sure if this is true or not, as ghosts themselves haven't said anything yet, so let's wait until it's officially announced by ghost themselves.

Update: thanks to a commenter on here, they have provided a link to a more detailed post about the situation. The link is in the comment section. Please read it. I will also reblog it if the link doesn't work for some people.

[st-just]

One well-known feature of bank rescues is that the legal terms of a bank’s funding often matter less than who holds them and how interconnected they are. Silicon Valley Bank failed with tens of billions of dollars of uninsured deposits, which, as you can tell by the name, were not insured by the government. The government insured them anyway, because SVB’s uninsured depositors were in various ways politically powerful, or sympathetic, or economically important; freezing the money that a bunch of startups needed to make payroll would be bad for the economy.  Similarly it would be bad if AT1 securities were mostly held in small retail accounts by retirees who relied on them for income: If zeroing AT1s would impose serious hardship on ordinary people, then that is hard for a regulator to do, which means that the AT1s can’t fulfill their purpose of absorbing losses. So banning them from retail accounts seems like good bank regulation. On the other hand, if Swiss bank AT1s are not held by Swiss retirees, but are held by wealthy Asian individuals, then that is in some ways politically ideal: The Swiss regulators get to impose losses on people who (1) can afford them and (2) don’t vote in Switzerland.

-Matt Levine

[digitalmarketingdosanddonts]

Discover how to measure Digital Marketing ROI effectively. Learn which KPIs truly matter and how to maximize ROI with expert-managed Google Ads campaigns. Digital Marketing ROI: How to Measure What Truly Matters – SVB

[ascgroupindia]

ASC Group offers expert guidance on Special Valuation Branch (SVB) matters, ensuring seamless compliance with customs regulations and accurate valuation for related-party imports, minimizing risks and penalties effectively.

[ailtrahq]

SVB Financial Group, the former parent company of Silicon Valley Bank is getting closer to a deal that will see the institution sell its venture capital arm SVB Capital.According to a Sept. 15 report from the Wall Street Journal — citing sources familiar with the matter — Anthony Scaramucci’s SkyBridge Capital and Atlas Merchant Capital are jostling with the San Francisco firm Vector Capital in the final stages of the bidding process.Sources claimed that SVB’s venture capital arm could be sold off for between $250 million and $500 million, but warned that a final sale is not guaranteed and that it would still require the review of the creditor’s committee. A decision on the sale is expected to come before the court in the coming weeks. Notably, SVB Capital was not included in the SVB's overarching Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, and the bank reportedly said that the outfit would continue its “ordinary course operation” of business despite being put up for sale. SVB Capital is an investment capital platform that conducts a wide range of investments, including the backing of other major Silicon Valley venture capital firms such as Sequoia and Andreessen Horowitz (a16z). As of December 2022, SVB Capital held $9.5 billion in assets across 20 funds and 760 companies, including blockchain analytics service Chainalysis.SVB Capital holdings overview as of December 2022. Source: SVB CapitalMeanwhile, Scarammuci’s SkyBridge Capital manages some $1.8 billion in assets. Of that figure, approximately $580 million is held in cryptocurrencies and other digital asset-related investments.Cointelegraph contacted SkyBridge Capital and SVB Capital for comment but did not receive a reply by the time of publication.Related: Senators slam bank execs for blaming collapses on crypto, pocketing millionsEarlier this year, Silicon Valley Bank was shut down by California’s financial watchdog on March 10 and filed for bankruptcy on March 17. Prior to its collapse, Silicon Valley Bank was one of the few institutions that offered banking services to crypto companies in the United States.Customers lining up outside of Silicon Valley Bank at its Menlo Park, CA branch. pic.twitter.com/SDNrSUC1C0— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) March 10, 2023 SVB crumbled alongside other crypto and tech-friendly banks, including Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank, in what was later seen as the worst banking crisis since 2008. Earlier this year, the investment-banking arm of SVB Financial, known as SVB Securities, sold itself to its founder Jeff Leerink and other senior managers for $100 million. Source

[bunchacrunchcake]

I've been saying this!!!

The worst part is the stock market knows. There's even a name for it called like least recent sucker or something.

During the 2009 financial crash Deutsche Bank bought tons of bad bonds from companies like Goldman Sachs because they thought they too could offload it into someone else.

Goldman realized they were trash and sold them to ANOTHER BANK. Like Goldman wasn't even like oh we will need someone stupid like Joe the Plumber. They went right to another global financial institution. And Deutsche Bank thought they would be able to sell them too. THEY ALL KNOW THIS RULE.

What we learned in 2009 and event recently with SVB in 2022 is that the government bails these banks out 👏 NO👏 MATTER👏 WHAT👏.

These traders DON'T make money off of sales half the time. They make money off of FEES. They can also be invested in these stocks as institutions as well. So it's a mix of taking percentages off of the billions of dollars that flow through the trading floor every day and making large investments that when they flop governments just allocate a special budget to give to the bank to keep them from going underwater.

EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S BAD. THEY KNOW THEY COULD BE THE ONE HOLDING THE BAG. AND THEY KNOW THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES.

I am fascinated that so many people didn't see this whole reddit debacle coming.

They will come for all your social media sites. For your media consumption sites. For your music apps.

Shareholders are playing hot potato with companies until the bills come due and then they are selling them off and the ones left are trying to make up their losses by charging for everything they can possibly imagine.

This is just where things have gotten. Most tech companies aren't profitable and probably won't ever be profitable, but they are traded on the stock market under the idea that they someday will be even when that's absurd and would literally wreck them to do so.

Business articles are talking about "growth" over profit constantly. "Future gains" supposedly outweigh "profit now". So these companies dump money into making themselves "great" and fancy (see: addictive and attractive) for free or for cheap so they can get all the users, because then they become worth a bunch. When they can't keep growing via users, they find ways to push more advertising, try to monetize the users a little, make it seem like they can squeeze that blood out of the stone. Then they try and sell before the bills come due so that when people finally start to realize that there's no way for the company to keep growing, they aren't left out of pocket, but whoever does get stuck with it wants to keep that growth going, so they add more bullshit. They cut account sharing, they add more tiers, they add more ads, they start charging for features that were free or included, they try make other companies pay them just to connect.

They are making things worse in the pursuit of artificial value. They are hoping they have enough of a monopoly on the way you interact that they can keep you hooked and paying their bullshit new fees and suffering through their ads so that they can recoup their losses.

This is going to keep happening.

[triviallytrue]

In terms of just the lost deposits, bank collapses don't affect most people due to deposit insurance. This seems to be set at $250k in the US. There are other concerns like individuals' liquidity, and systemic risk. But it seems like in cases of bank collapse with no systemic risk, most people are financially better off not bailing it out, as it means more of loss lies with the well off.

this isn't true! TL;DR it probably used to be true, but for ex in the case of SVB, there were a number of payroll providers in the bank, and if they go under, every person who works for one of the companies that uses those payroll providers can't get paid:

When Rippling’s bank recently went under, there was substantial risk that paychecks would not arrive at the employees of Rippling’s customers. Rippling wrote a press release whose title mostly contains the content: “Rippling calls on FDIC to release payments due to hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans.”

Prior to the FDIC et al’s decision to entirely back the depositors of the failed bank, the amount of coverage that the deposit insurance scheme provided depositors was $250,000 and the amount it afforded someone receiving a paycheck drawn on the dead bank was zero dollars and zero cents.

This is not a palatable result for society. Not politically, not as a matter of policy, not as a matter of ethics.

Every regulator sees the world through a lens that was painstakingly crafted over decades. The FDIC institutionally looks at this fact pattern and sees this as a single depositor over the insured deposit limit. It does not see 300,000 bounced paychecks.

Payroll providers are the tip of the iceberg for novel innovations in financial services over the last few decades. There exist many other things which society depends on which map very poorly to “insured account” abstraction. This likely magnifies the likely aggregate impact of bank failures, and makes some of our institutional intuitions about their blast radius wrong in important ways.

[collapsedsquid]

At least one startup was planning to do layoffs on Friday, but the Silicon Valley Bank situation forestalled those plans because the business, which banked with SVB, no longer had the capital to pay severance, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. 

[mudwerks]

(via Twitter fueled run on Silicon Valley Bank, new paper finds)

As Janet Yellen said last month: “No matter how strong capital and liquidity supervision are, if a bank has an overwhelming run that’s spurred by social media so that it’s seeing deposits flee at that pace, a bank can be put in danger of failing."

Leading up to the bank run, some influential members of the Silicon Valley startup community — which made up a big chunk of SVBs depositors — freaked out about the bank on Twitter, spreading panic.

what a HUGE surprise!?!?!

[digitalmarketingdosanddonts]

Why Most Businesses Fail on Social Media — And How to Avoid It

Many businesses are active on social media, but few see meaningful returns on their investment. The reason is simple: without a clear strategy and a deep understanding of the platform, it’s easy to fall into common traps.

Here are five reasons most businesses fail on social media:

No clear strategy Without clear goals and a defined approach, it’s difficult to measure success or stay consistent.

Broadcasting, not engaging Social media is about building relationships. Companies that only promote their products miss the opportunity to foster trust and loyalty.

Focusing on vanity metrics Large follower counts and viral posts may look good, but they rarely drive real business outcomes. Engagement quality matters more than quantity.

Inconsistent or low-value content Audiences expect relevant, helpful, and high-quality content. Inconsistency or poor value quickly leads to disengagement.

Neglecting community management Ignoring comments or failing to engage with your community sends the message that you don’t value your audience’s voice.

How can your business avoid these pitfalls?

Develop a strategy aligned with your overall business goals.

Focus on providing value and building relationships.

Measure what matters conversions, customer engagement, and brand perception.

Maintain consistent, high-quality content delivery.

Engage with your audience authentically and consistently.

Ready to build a more effective, results-driven social media strategy? Contact us today! +91 78419 96458 | info@svbdigitalmarketingservices.com | SVB

We’d love to hear how your business is approaching social media in 2025. Share your thoughts in the comments. #SocialMediaStrategy #BusinessGrowth #DigitalMarketing #BrandEngagement #MarketingInsights #SVBdigitalmarketingservices

[ascgroupindia]

ASC Group offers expert assistance in Special Valuation Branch (SVB) matters, ensuring compliance with customs regulations for related-party imports. Trust our professionals for seamless valuation solutions and regulatory approvals.

[salty-dracon]

ELI5: The Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

TL:DR SVB made a somewhat risky investment which went poorly in changing market conditions, and didn’t have the money to pay back their depositors. The FDIC has decided to fund the remaining bank accounts, but shareholders will realize a total loss on their stock.

If you haven’t been following the news, the second biggest bank collapse in American history just happened. But you probably have no idea what that means, so I’m going to explain it all in simple terms, with no frills, no biases, and no opinions.

Please let me know if I get anything wrong here. While I do work in finance, I’ve heard conflicting sources on some of the events.

The Basics of How Banks Work

Left to their own devices, people ordinarily wouldn’t just give their wealth to someone else for safekeeping. But these days there are many incentives for the average person to lend their money to a bank. Yes, there’s the matter of security (robbers can steal physical tender, such as physical bills and valuables), but there is also interest. By lending your money to a bank (like a loan!), the bank then uses your balance to invest in the stock market or major projects such as other peoples’ mortgages, with the promise that all of the money you’ve placed with them will be returned to you when you ask... with a little bit extra as interest. That’s your incentive for placing your money with them.

The point is, you placed your money with a bank, and in exchange for you lending them your money, they’ve promised to give it back to you when you ask, with a little bit extra. That’s important to understanding the next topic.

Investments, Reserves, and Insolvency

Okay, but how do banks generate the “little bit extra” that they promised to give you in exchange for borrowing your money? Through investments!

Investments can be a lot of things. Mortgages are investments- a bank can lend someone a big chunk of money, and in exchange the bank receives cash monthly that ends up being worth more than they loaned out. They can be investments into the stock market- buying stocks at low price, watching the price rise, and selling them high is a way to net profit. There are other types of investments too, like bonds (mini loans), CDs (low risk, long-term investments that guarantee profits that bank customers can take out), and options (very complicated). What they have in common is that you lend your money, and hopefully get more back (though there’s some risk of loss).

As an example, let’s pretend you’ve put $20,000 in a bank account. The bank could then take $10,000 and put it into a risk-free investment that returns at 2%. One year later, the return is $10,200, at least $10,000 of which must return to you. The bank may take $100 of that as their own profit and return the remaining $10,100 to your account- the remaining $100 is your interest. (This is a theoretical example. My own bank account hasn’t generated nearly that much in interest.)

But let’s say the investment isn’t risk-free. They’ve taken $10,000 of your money, invested in that 2% return project, and it flopped. Ouch. Now they’re out $10,000- of your money! That doesn’t seem fair!

That’s why banks have reserves. It’s a buffer/stockpile of cash or liquid assets (things that can be converted to cash really quickly) that covers a depositor’s finances should the bank’s own investments go south, OR if people need to pull out their money. Banks usually have a dedicated team of analysts that calculate the amount of reserves a bank can safely set aside to cover these sorts of events. This covers souring investments as well as times when a big customer is planning to pull out a ton of savings. That $10,000 is a drop in the bucket for them, but something like $1 million is more concerning.

So, even if the investment goes south, at least you’ve still got that guaranteed $20,000 on demand in case of, say, a medical emergency.

... At least, that’s how it should work.

If a bank doesn’t have enough reserves/quick money to fulfill its obligations of money on demand to everyone who lent it to them, it becomes insolvent- basically bankrupt unless they do a lot of stuff to get money fast really quickly. This can involve pulling money out of investments (which costs money to do, and is not something any investor would want to do unless they need a lot of money really really fast). This is the worst case scenario for any financial institution and one they want to prevent at all costs.

Understandably, the insolvency of the bank you’re keeping your money at is a terrifying situation for people who really need that money. And it was a common situation up until the 1930′s.

Bank Runs

You probably know someone who lived through the Great Depression who has a large stockpile of cash and refuses to use credit cards or banks. Some people probably even call them stupid for doing so. I’m not going to call your money hoarding grandparents stupid, since they’re operating off a very real fear- the fear that a bank won’t have the legal tender to give them their money when they ask. That situation was VERY COMMON before the FDIC was created in 1933 to insure the deposits of its member banks.

What would happen is that you’d hear that some news about how a certain bank was having financial trouble, and might close very, very soon. You freak out and realize that if they close, you’ve given your money to them, and now you’re not going to get it back! You go to a branch of the bank to withdraw all of your money, only to find that everyone else had the same thoughts as you, and the branch is already out of physical tender. As more and more people realize they’re about to lose all of their savings, the bank is drained at an exponentially increasing rate- and soon, the bank has become insolvent.

Banks have defenses for this- suspending withdrawals, limiting withdrawals, and asking their central bank for more liquid funds. But in the case of a bank run, or a bank panic, which is a bunch of banks experiencing bank runs at once, those defenses might fail entirely.

The FDIC, an American Government Corporation, was created as an insurance company for banks. Basically, banks pay dues to the FDIC, and in the case of the bank’s insolvency, the FDIC guarantees deposits up to about $250,000. It was created partially as a way to avoid future bank runs and protect consumers in the case of a bank collapse.

Interest Rates and Inflation

You’ve probably heard about the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates or keeping them low throughout the recent pandemic, but what does that actually mean, and why is it relevant here?

The Federal Reserve sets target interest rates- basically, setting the price at which major banks can borrow from the government. This ends up forming the basis for other types of loans you can get from banks- mortgages, car loans, etc.. Periodically these are revised with regards to economic conditions.

Basically, raising interest rates is used to encourage people to STOP borrowing money and START lending money- the return for lending is higher, and the price of borrowing is higher. Lowering interest rates is used to encourage people to START borrowing money and STOP lending money- the return for lending is lower, and the price of borrowing is lower.

(This is why you always want a loan with a low interest rate, btw!)

(And keep in mind that these are with regards to major economic decisions, and not necessarily the types of loans an ordinary person would get.)

Now, why is inflation relevant? Yes, it’s really high right now, and that means that the prices of everything are increasing a lot! The Federal Reserve’s answer to that is to increase interest rates- by making it more costly to borrow money, they’re hoping to stop an unsustainable level of price increases in everything else.

I think I get it. Now what’s going on?

Silicon Valley Bank was a fast-growing bank that, in recent years, held a lot of funds for entrepreneurs and tech startups- about 50% of all venture capital money in the US! What this means is a. a lot of large accounts in b. mainly one sector of the economy (technology).

That being said, the bank would most certainly not outpace inflation if they didn’t invest it. However, at the time, they couldn’t find any places they could loan money to.

Furthermore, the tech/crypto/startup sector of the economy has been going through hard times for a while. Many needed to slowly pull out funds from the bank, further straining the amount of liquid cash on hand.

In 2021, SVB instead decided to invest in mortgage-backed securities with the deposits placed with them. Mortgages are basically very long loans, but they can also be very risky. Mortgage-backed securities are based on mortgages. (The risk surrounding mortgage-backed securities is one reason for the housing crisis of 2008.) It should also be noted that they’re very susceptible to changes in interest rates- if interest rates increase, mortgage-backed securities lose their value.

In 2022, we got severe inflation.

And then, the Federal Reserve’s answer to severe inflation: raising interest rates.

And the mortgage-backed securities that SVB took out became unprofitable!

Now remember how I said that banks need to be able to not only provide customers their deposits on demand, but also give it back with interest? Because the investment in mortgage-backed securities failed, SVB didn’t have money for interest OR deposits, and not enough in reserves to fill the gap. They would be insolvent, if they didn’t come up with a lot of money really, really fast. 

Word spread fast- depositors had already realized that the bank had become insolvent, and they demanded their deposits back. In other words, SVB went through a bank run, losing their money over the course of three days.

The FDIC then stepped in. Now this is a bit of an unusual case, because the FDIC only insures accounts up to $250,000. Most venture capital startups have accounts that are many times that. However, the FDIC has decided (with their own member deposits, not taxpayer money) that all of the venture capital money will be paid. All of the bankers will get their deposits back.

SVB is still closing, however, and shareholders and stockholders will not be compensated for the stock loss.

So while shareholders lose out, every creditor/depositor who invested will be getting their money back. As for Silicon Valley Bank, it’s being administered by the FDIC up until it’s time for it to close down.

[poipoipoi-2016]

So I really do want to stress that pretty much every bank that made loans prior to mid/late 2021 is more or less insolvent at this point. That includes Chase Bank.

Because every single asset in the economy that was a loan at N% is now a cashflow at N plus about 6%. And being able to survive that hasn't been the contract of banking since about 1500.

And that's being covered up by the fact that very few of these banks are actually illiquid. So if you had $100 Billion in the bank, you had $10 Billion in the bank, and $90 Billion on your loan book paying interest so that you could pay your depositors but also like... your bank tellers.

And now you have $10 Billion in the bank, a steady if quite LOW cashflow, and those cashflows are worth $50-70 Billion depending on duration.

So you're insolvent, but not illiquid if someone wants a billion dollars.

Unless you're the Bank of Startups at which point congrats you're totally illiquid and now we have to notice the insolvency.

OTOH, if you let the Bank of Startups that used VC startup funding to give out mortgages go under, a lot of small businesses with a few million in cash (For that matter, Apple supposedly has a few hundred billion AUM floating around somewhere) go under, the Bank of Tractors is probably next. And the Bank of Auto Parts Stores and so on.

So there will be a liquidity bridge followed by a bailout where SVB ceases to exist and SVB bank accounts continue to exist.

Or there will be a horribly destructive financial crisis.