跳到主内容
@wquguru
精选75SaaStr 博客(RSS)产品与增长

SVB倒闭复盘:企业现金管理从单账户到多账户的实战转变

Goodnight & Goodbye, SVB

原文
发到 X
推荐理由

给出了具体的现金管理动作(多账户+Sweep+分散存放),直接解决初创公司最敏感的生存问题,且基于真实惨痛教训,极具实操价值。

I got the email the other day. Frank Holding Jr., Marc Cadieux and Jesse Hurley, letting me know that starting in early October, the rollout of a “united brand strategy” begins. And the SVB brand will now be retired.

前几天我收到了一封邮件。Frank Holding Jr.、Marc Cadieux 和 Jesse Hurley 通知我,从十月初开始,将推行“统一品牌战略”。SVB 品牌现已停用。

Translated: Silicon Valley Bank Technology and Healthcare Banking becomes First Citizens Innovation Banking. SVB Global Fund Banking becomes First Citizens Fund Banking. SVB Go becomes Go by First Citizens Bank. Your ABA numbers, account numbers and passwords are all fine. No action required.

翻译如下:硅谷银行科技与医疗银行业务更名为 First Citizens Innovation Banking。SVB Global Fund Banking 更名为 First Citizens Fund Banking。SVB Go 更名为 Go by First Citizens Bank。你的 ABA 号码、账号和密码均保持不变。无需采取任何行动。

What the email describes is the end of a 43-year-old brand that was, for most of those years, the most important financial institution in the startup economy. It did a lot of good.

这封邮件描述的是一个拥有 43 年历史品牌的终结,在大多数年份里,该品牌一直是初创经济领域最重要的金融机构。它曾带来许多益处。

It also blew itself up and took $10,000,000 of our money with it for a weekend.

但它也自我毁灭,并在一个周末带走了我们 1000 万美元的资金。

1983 to 2019: The bank that would lend to companies nobody else would touch

1983 年至 2019 年:那家向其他机构不愿触碰的公司提供贷款的银行

The idea came out of a poker game at Pajaro Dunes in the early 1980s. Bill Biggerstaff, a Wells Fargo executive, and Robert Medearis, a Stanford professor, thought the companies getting funded up and down Sand Hill Road needed a bank that understood them. The first office opened in San Jose on October 17, 1983, with Roger Smith as founding CEO.

这个想法源于 20 世纪 80 年代初在 Pajaro Dunes 的一场扑克游戏。富国银行高管 Bill Biggerstaff 和斯坦福大学教授 Robert Medearis 认为,沿着 Sand Hill Road 获得融资的公司需要一家理解它们的银行。第一间办公室于 1983 年 10 月 17 日在圣何塞开业,Roger Smith 担任创始 CEO。

The first decade almost ended it. By the early 1990s roughly half the loan book was commercial real estate, and when the California market turned, SVB posted a loss in 1992. They pulled real estate down to under 10% of loans within three years and went all in on the innovation economy instead.

第一个十年差点让它倒闭。到 20 世纪 90 年代初,其贷款组合中约有半数用于商业地产,当加州市场转向时,SVB 在 1992 年录得亏损。他们在三年内将房地产贷款比例降至贷款总额的 10% 以下,转而全力押注创新经济。

That pivot set up the next 25 years. SVB built an underwriting model for companies with no profits, often no revenue, and an asset base consisting almost entirely of a term sheet and a team. They invented venture debt as a real product category. They lent early to Cisco and Bay Networks. They opened in Israel in 2008, the UK and a China joint venture in 2012, then Europe and Canada.

这一转型为接下来 25 年的发展奠定了基础。SVB 为那些没有利润、通常也没有收入,资产基础几乎完全由条款清单(term sheet)和团队组成的公司建立了承销模式。他们发明了风险债务(venture debt)这一真正的产品类别。他们早期就向思科(Cisco)和 Bay Networks 提供贷款。他们于 2008 年在以色列开设分行,2012 年在英国和中国合资企业设立网点,随后拓展至欧洲和加拿大。

By the end, SVB banked close to half of all US venture-backed technology and life sciences companies. It banked 55% of venture-backed tech and healthcare IPOs in 2021 and 44% in 2022. If you started a company in the US between 1995 and 2022, there is a very good chance your first business checking account, your first credit card, your first line of credit and your first venture debt facility all came from the same place.

到最后,SVB 为近半美国风投支持的科技和生命科学公司提供银行服务。2021 年,它为 55% 的风投支持科技和医疗健康 IPO 提供服务,2022 年为 44%。如果你在 1995 年至 2022 年间在美国创办公司,那么你的第一张商业支票账户、第一张信用卡、第一笔信贷额度和第一笔风险债务融资极有可能都来自同一家机构。

Nobody else wanted that business. SVB took it for four decades and was good at it. Founders got a bank that didn’t ask why a company with $400K in revenue was burning $900K a quarter.

没有其他机构愿意做这笔生意。SVB 做了四十年,并且做得很好。创始人得到了一家不会质问‘为什么一家年收入 40 万美元的公司每季度要烧掉 90 万美元’的银行。

2019 to 2023: A $200 billion bank with no chief risk officer

2019年至2023年:一家资产达2000亿美元却无首席风险官的银行

Total assets went from about $71 billion in 2019 to more than $211 billion by 2021. Roughly tripling in two years.

总资产从2019年的约710亿美元增长到2021年的超过2110亿美元。两年内几乎翻了三倍。

The deposits came in faster than anyone could deploy them into loans, so SVB put an enormous share into long-duration securities at the exact bottom of the rate cycle. Then rates went up nine times in a year.

存款流入速度快于任何人将其投放到贷款中的速度,因此SVB在利率周期的绝对底部将巨额份额投入长期证券。随后,利率在一年内上调了九次。

What the Fed’s own post-mortem found, in its words, was a textbook case of mismanagement:

美联储自己的事后评估发现,用他们的话说,这是一起管理不当的典型教科书案例:

  • No Chief Risk Officer for roughly eight months heading into the failure. At a bank with more than $200B in assets and one of the most concentrated deposit bases in America.
  • The interest rate hedges came off. The bank had them at one point. They were not in place when it failed.
  • 31 open supervisory findings at the end of 2022, including a November 2022 finding that SVB’s own interest rate risk simulations were unreliable and gave a false sense of safety in a rising rate environment.
  • Risk managed for short-run profit. The Fed’s review found SVB was positioned to protect against rates going down, not up.
  • Deposit concentration that was total. Overwhelmingly uninsured, overwhelmingly from one industry, and every single client connected to every other client through group chats and VC portfolio-wide emails.
  • 在倒闭前的 roughly 八个月内没有首席风险官。这是一家拥有超过2000亿美元资产、且在美国拥有最集中的存款基础的银行。
  • 利率对冲措施撤除了。该银行曾经有过这些对冲措施。但在其倒闭时,这些对冲措施并未到位。
  • 截至2022年底有31项未决监管发现,其中包括2022年11月的一项发现,指出SVB自身的利率风险模拟不可靠,并在利率上升的环境中给人一种虚假的安全感。
  • 风险管理侧重于短期利润。美联储的审查发现,SVB的定位是为了防范利率下行,而非上行。
  • 存款集中度极高。绝大多数未受保险保障,绝大多数来自单一行业,且每一位客户都通过群聊和覆盖整个VC投资组合的电子邮件与其他所有客户相连。

On March 8, 2023, SVB sold about $21 billion of securities at a roughly $1.8 billion after-tax loss and announced it would raise $2 billion. On March 9, clients attempted to pull $42 billion in a single day. On March 10, the California DFPI closed it and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Forty years of building, and the run and the seizure took two days. It was the second-largest bank failure in US history at the time.

2023年3月8日,SVB以约18亿美元的税后损失出售了约210亿美元的证券,并宣布将筹集20亿美元。3月9日,客户试图在一天内提取420亿美元。3月10日,加州DFPI关闭了该银行并任命FDIC为接管人。四十年的积累,挤兑和接管仅用了两天时间。当时这是美国历史上第二大银行倒闭事件。

Where is Powell? Where is Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW. Announce that all depositors will be safe. Place SVB with a Top 4 bank. Do this before Monday open or there will be contagion and the crisis will spread.

鲍威尔在哪里?耶伦在哪里?立即停止这场危机。宣布所有储户都将得到保障。将SVB列为前四大银行之一。在周一开盘前这样做,否则将出现传染,危机将蔓延。

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 10, 2023

—— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) 2023年3月10日

SaaStr itself had $10 million there

SaaStr本身在那里存有1000万美元

We had roughly $10,000,000 sitting at SVB when the bank went down. That was, at the time, essentially all of our operating cash. Payroll. Vendor deposits for the Annual. Everything.

当银行倒闭时,我们在SVB存有大约1000万美元。在当时,这基本上是我们所有的运营现金。工资。年度活动的供应商押金。一切。

Nobody I know outsmarted this. There was no clever treasury policy that saved us. There was a Thursday where the wire didn’t go through, a Friday where the bank was gone, and a Saturday and Sunday where a very large number of people who run real businesses did the math on whether they could make payroll on Monday with 15% of their cash.

我认识的人里没人能靠智谋化解这场危机。没有精妙的资金管理政策救了我们。那是一个周四,电汇没能到账;周五,银行已经关门;周六和周日,大量经营实体企业的人都在算账:带着仅剩15%的现金,周一能不能发得出工资。

We got the $10M back. Not because we were smart, and not because the system worked as designed. We got it back because on Sunday, March 12, the Treasury Secretary, the Fed Board and the FDIC Board invoked the statutory systemic risk exception and guaranteed every depositor, insured and uninsured, in full.

我们收回了1000万美元。不是因为我们聪明,也不是因为系统按设计正常运行。我们之所以能拿回来,是因为在3月12日星期日,财政部长、美联储理事会和FDIC(联邦存款保险公司)理事会援引了法定系统性风险例外条款,全额担保了所有储户——无论是否投保。

That was a policy decision. It could have gone the other way. FDIC insurance covers $250,000 per depositor, per bank, per ownership category. Our $10M was uninsured. On the merits of the rulebook we had written our own exposure and we owned it.

这是一个政策决定。结果本可能相反。FDIC保险每人在每家银行每个所有权类别下最高承保25万美元。我们的1000万美元未受保险保障。按照既定规则,我们清楚自己的风险敞口并自行承担后果。

Who actually paid: protecting uninsured depositors at SVB and Signature cost the Deposit Insurance Fund an estimated $16.3 billion, and the FDIC recouped it through a special assessment on the 110 banks holding more than $5 billion in uninsured deposits, at 3.36 basis points a quarter for eight quarters, with the first $5 billion exempt. Shareholders and certain bondholders were wiped out. So it was not a taxpayer bailout in the direct sense, and it was not a rescue of SVB as a firm. It was a depositor guarantee, funded by other banks.

实际由谁买单:保护SVB和Signature银行未投保储户的成本估计为163亿美元,FDIC通过对持有超过50亿美元未投保存款的110家银行征收特别评估费收回了这笔资金,每季度3.36个基点,持续八个季度,首笔50亿美元豁免。股东和部分债券持有人血本无归。因此,从直接意义上讲,这并非纳税人救助,也非对SVB这家公司的救援。这是一项由其他银行出资的储户担保计划。

It was still intervention. Without it, SaaStr takes a haircut on eight figures, and thousands of startups miss payroll in the same week. Every founder who says “we were fine” was fine because of a phone call in Washington on a Sunday.

但这仍然是政府干预。如果没有它,SaaStr将遭受八位数级别的损失,成千上万的初创公司将在同一周发不出工资。每一位声称“我们没事”的创始人之所以安然无恙,都归功于周日在华盛顿打出的那通电话。

TIMELINE OF SILICON VALLEY BANK, $SIVB, COLLAPSE:

硅谷银行($SIVB)崩盘时间线:

1. Bank run begins with $91 billion in bonds facing interest rate risk

1. 银行挤兑开始,面临利率风险的债券规模达910亿美元

2. $21 billion bond portfolio sale announced, $1.8 billion lost

2. 宣布出售210亿美元债券组合,亏损18亿美元

3. SVB announces $2.3 billion share sale to cover bond losses

3. SVB宣布发行23亿美元新股以弥补债券损失

4. SVB fails to raise capital…

4. SVB未能筹集到资本……

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 12, 2023

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) 2023年3月12日

Every startup now runs two bank accounts

如今每家初创公司都开设两个银行账户

Essentially every venture-backed company now runs at least two banking relationships. Sweep products that spread FDIC coverage across dozens of partner banks went from a niche treasury feature to table stakes. Cash that used to sit in one operating account now sits split across an operating bank, a fintech, and T-bills.

几乎所有获得风投的公司现在都至少维持两家银行的合作关系。通过多家合作银行分散FDIC承保额度的现金归集产品,已从一项小众的资金管理功能变成了标配。过去存放在单一运营账户中的现金,现在被拆分存放在运营银行、金融科技公司以及美国国债中。

The share shifted with it. JPMorgan went after the vacuum aggressively, added hundreds of bankers to its innovation economy team, and is still building the business out in 2026. Mercury and Brex took the new-company formation cohort on user experience and speed of account opening. First Citizens kept a real business, especially in fund banking and venture debt, but mostly with the clients it already had rather than the ones being incorporated this quarter.

市场份额随之转移。摩根大通积极填补这一真空,向其创新经济团队增派了数百名银行家,并在2026年仍在持续拓展该业务。Mercury和Brex则在用户体验和开户速度上针对新成立的公司群体展开竞争。First Citizens保留了实体银行业务,尤其在基金银行和风险债务方面,但主要服务于其现有客户,而非本季度新注册的企业。

No single institution holds half of the startup ecosystem’s cash anymore, and none is likely to again. That costs founders an afternoon of treasury setup they didn’t used to have to do, and it’s worth it.

如今没有任何一家机构持有初创企业生态系统中半数的现金,未来也不太可能重现这种情况。这导致创始人需要花费一下午时间来设置资金管理方案,而这在过去是不需要的,但这是值得的。

October: the name comes off, the FDIC note is still being paid

十月:名称移除,FDIC票据仍在偿还中

更进一步:量化金融体系

看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径,把它变成能交付的工程能力

进入量化体系 →

相似阅读

另一事件,读法相近