> They just made a huge return on a short play that most people never saw coming.
Debatable. The amount is not disclosed. Also just in this HN thread there were some talk about how even if someone saw it coming taking the actual position was a bit risky (because borrowing the stock in a high-interest rate env can easily lead to closing the position too soon).
> This establishes who the short seller is, when the interview is taking place, and makes clear that short seller has come to his position after heavy review of SVB's finances over the course of months.
That sentence is too evocative of fluff. (To me. And I'm guessing to other HN commenters too.)
Its style does not match the subject matter, nor the rest of the article. It's too eloquent, too visual, yet imprecise. Were the doors really closed? What does that even mean to today's "terminally online" audience, who read these articles? What's the name of the regulator? Walking through, closely eyeballing for months ... yet in the next paragraphs they mention "last two years". Okay, sure, it's not a "gotcha" or some huge logical contradiction, but it's just unexplained to me as a reader.
All in all, I don't like the pacing, the format, the style, the terrible one sentence paragraphs of this article.
> The bank effectively touches every part of the private markets.
Yeah, but that's like saying buying a lot of SP500 touches every part of public markets. Yes, SVB was big, 209B big, but when the Vision fund is 150B, and VC has more than 2T, and PE has more than 4T assets under management, I'm not sure what to think of this.
To me this article, while has some interesting factoids, comes off as a strange almost personal account of the writer's "oh no one knows what will happen now" emotionally charged state. (Which is okay for a blog, but underwhelming for HN front page.)
Debatable. The amount is not disclosed. Also just in this HN thread there were some talk about how even if someone saw it coming taking the actual position was a bit risky (because borrowing the stock in a high-interest rate env can easily lead to closing the position too soon).
> This establishes who the short seller is, when the interview is taking place, and makes clear that short seller has come to his position after heavy review of SVB's finances over the course of months.
That sentence is too evocative of fluff. (To me. And I'm guessing to other HN commenters too.)
Its style does not match the subject matter, nor the rest of the article. It's too eloquent, too visual, yet imprecise. Were the doors really closed? What does that even mean to today's "terminally online" audience, who read these articles? What's the name of the regulator? Walking through, closely eyeballing for months ... yet in the next paragraphs they mention "last two years". Okay, sure, it's not a "gotcha" or some huge logical contradiction, but it's just unexplained to me as a reader.
All in all, I don't like the pacing, the format, the style, the terrible one sentence paragraphs of this article.
> The bank effectively touches every part of the private markets.
Yeah, but that's like saying buying a lot of SP500 touches every part of public markets. Yes, SVB was big, 209B big, but when the Vision fund is 150B, and VC has more than 2T, and PE has more than 4T assets under management, I'm not sure what to think of this.
To me this article, while has some interesting factoids, comes off as a strange almost personal account of the writer's "oh no one knows what will happen now" emotionally charged state. (Which is okay for a blog, but underwhelming for HN front page.)