Pure market bankruptcy, this is about that SVB, a Silicon Valley bank, so to speak.
Here, I mean in Ukraine, people almost always forget that the vast majority of bank failures occur purely for market reasons. Somewhere they underestimated the risks or made a mistake with the business model, or in general they did everything right – and the risks were calculated, and the model was viable – but they simply lost the competition and flew out of the market.
And such causes and cases are the overwhelming majority, very overwhelming.
Not fraud, not schematosis, not the machinations of the owners. Because in our country, when a bank exits the market or when it is already being withdrawn, because it doesn’t want to leave, even if it doesn’t want to be dead, then everyone is looking for some kind of evil, whether it’s the bank’s schematization or the insidious actions of the National Bank.
The bank underestimated the risks, invested in something that fell in price, there was nothing to cover the losses, people who went to school and studied arithmetic and did not go, but had intuition, began to take money, problems began not only with capital, but also with liquidity, here and all.
At least that’s how it looks from the outside, because it’s clear that none of us were there inside. And this is a purely market story, that’s how it works.
You can’t even come up with any lessons based on this story. Everything will be known truths and Captain Evidence: well, yes, the risks must be considered; well, yes, you can’t put all the eggs or money in one basket, high concentration is a risk (these are all the rules and limits on the concentration of assets – they are written in money, and in some places really in blood); well, yes, games with the state, I mean with state assets, end badly if you play it for a long time, this is the table at which you should sit down only when there is a clear plan on how to get out of there and, most importantly, when, and then this stick to the plan.
Such commonplace truths that there is no point in repeating; for who knows them, he knows, and whoever does not know, at least speak to him, at least not, until he feels it in his own skin, he will not understand.
So what’s next? Yes, nothing further. Nothing important, nothing critical. There is something to sell there to compensate for losses, at least partially, this is not [подставить название любого нашего неплатежеспособного банка]where even chairs and ups are taken out, let alone briefcases.
That startups are now hysterical about collapse and storms, and the media is actively dispersing it because of emotions, hype, likes, views, advertising. So it is in its purest form the depositors of the bank “Mikhailovsky” who want other taxpayers to pay for their own actions. In general, this is such a test for the maturity of a startup: if you give money to a bank without even checking its financial condition, then it may be for the best that the startup did not take off. A kind of exam, one might say – who did not stand it, well, well.
What do we get out of this? I would even be a little ironic here. “If Megabank went bankrupt, a niche bank with a business model and everything else – what does this mean for the financial system, let’s say, in Bulgaria?” Versions that this is the collapse of the global financial system or the world order and order in general, they say, a harbinger, the first sign, do not even want to discuss.
Navalny and Oscar: Ukrainians are outraged by Hollywood’s decision, but what’s wrong here?
Leave a Reply