Three days into his tenure as Silicon Valley Bank‘s government-appointed CEO, Tim Mayopoulos has a message for his high-powered venture capital and startup clients: Bring your money back.
That was consistent throughout Mayopoulos’ responses as he fielded over 400 questions from concerned clients on a 30-minute Zoom call Wednesday.
related investing news
“There is no safer place in the U.S. banking system to put your deposits,” Mayopoulos said on the call, which CNBC attended and was first to report. He urged clients to return their funds to the bank and to promptly alert their relationship teams of any issues with inbound or outbound wire transfers, a point of concern for many corporate executives who were unable to pull their deposits from the bank last week.
Mayopoulos was joined by SVB operating chief Phil Cox, the only remaining executive from the core C-suite team. SVB’s former CEO and CFO are no longer employed by the bank, Mayopoulos said on the call.
While Mayopoulos is making his pleas to current and former clients, it’s not clear how long he will stay in his current job as the bank is currently controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mayopoulos said he doesn’t know what SVB’s “exact end state” would look like, and he listed three possibilities: recapitalization, sale, or liquidation.
A recapitalization would allow SVB to continue to exist as a standalone entity. But that possibility depends on another financial institution or group of investors stepping up.
“I recognize I’m new on the scene,” Mayopoulos said in direct response to concerns from venture capital firms. “You’ve been patient with us as we’ve gone through some of those operational difficulties. All I would ask is give us a chance to win back your trust and confidence.”
Mayopoulos’ pitch was tailored towards the venture investors that have taken to social media in droves to express shock and dismay at the collapse of a storied Silicon Valley institution. On the call, Mayopoulos repeatedly referred to the “innovation economy,” and to a startup ecosystem in which “Silicon Valley has played an important part.”
Customer feedback will be critical in determining the future of the bank, Mayopoulos said on the call. Input “from clients and from the venture capital and entrepreneurial community” would shape the timetable for SVB’s ultimate emergence from government control.
“One of the things I want to convey to you is that you have some agency in this that you actually get to vote, at least to send clear signals about what you want the outcome of this process to be,” the CEO said in his prepared remarks. “If our clients choose to take their deposits and keep them in other institutions, that clearly limits the range of options that we have in terms of the ultimate outcome.”
SVB’s longstanding relationship with Silicon Valley’s most elite venture firms is mutually beneficial and symbiotic.
From its founding at a poker table until the nearly fatal bank run last week, SVB was focused on taking risks in a market that most traditional banks shunned. SVB found a niche in venture debt, funding companies that needed cash infusions, especially between funding rounds.
In exchange for future consideration, often equity or warrants in a company, SVB became a mammoth player in the venture debt space, extending from software and internet into life sciences and robotics.
In its over 40 of business, SVB grew along with its depositors, building out a lucrative mortgage business and a suite of private-banking products that allowed it to retain and charm the founders whose fortunes the bank helped create.
From legacy enterprises like Cisco to more modern tech companies such as DocuSign and Roku, SVB has focused on providing financing and banking services at every stage of growth.
“There are other places that do venture debt, but Silicon Valley Bank was the 1,000-pound gorilla in the room,” said Ami Kassar, CEO of the business lending consultant Multifunding.
Exclusivity contracts, meaning an ironclad promise that a company would keep all its money at SVB, were a key facet of those funding deals. When SVB failed, it roiled startups that had traded banking flexibility for liquidity. Some fled the bank, violating their covenants to keep their lights on and their payroll checks rolling.
When asked about potential exclusivity violations, Mayopoulos indicated that he understood emergency actions taken by startups.
“Given the change in circumstances and what the FDIC has done around insurance coverage, we’d very much like to work with our clients to have those deposits come back to us,” the CEO said on the call.
Clients who return wouldn’t have to worry about any fallout from breach of their covenants, Mayopoulos suggested. He didn’t say what would happen to ex-customers who did the same.
Signage at 23andMe headquarters in Sunnyvale, California, U.S., on Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2021.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is investigating 23andMe‘s decision to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and has expressed concern that its sensitive genetic data is “at risk of being compromised,” CNBC has learned.
Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Rep. Gary Palmer, R.-Ala., sent a letter to 23andMe’s interim CEO Joe Selsavage on Thursday requesting answers to a series of questions about its data and privacy practices by May 1.
The congressmen are the latest government officials to raise concerns about 23andMe’s commitment to data security, as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Federal Trade Commission have sent the company similar letters in recent weeks.
23andMe exploded into the mainstream with its at-home DNA testing kits that gave customers insight into their family histories and genetic profiles. The company was once valued at a peak of $6 billion, but has since struggled to generate recurring revenue and establish a lucrative research and therapeutics businesses.
After filing for bankruptcy in in Missouri federal court in March, 23andMe’s assets, including its vast genetic database, are up for sale.
“With the lack of a federal comprehensive data privacy and security law, we write to express our great concern about the safety of Americans’ most sensitive personal information,” Guthrie, Bilirakis and Palmer wrote in the letter.
23andMe did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
More CNBC health coverage
23andMe has been inundated with privacy concerns in recent years after hackers accessed the information of nearly 7 million customers in 2023.
DNA data is particularly sensitive because each person’s sequence is unique, meaning it can never be fully anonymized, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. If genetic data falls into the hands of bad actors, it could be used to facilitate identity theft, insurance fraud and other crimes.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over issues involving data privacy. Guthrie serves as the chairman of the committee, Palmer serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Bilirakis serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.
The congressmen said that while Americans’ health information is protected under legislation like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, direct-to-consumer companies like 23andMe are typically not covered under that law. They said they feel “great concern” about the safety of the company’s customer data, especially given the uncertainty around the sale process.
23andMe has repeatedly said it will not change how it manages or protects consumer data throughout the transaction. Similarly, in a March release, the company said all potential buyers must agree to comply with its privacy policy and applicable law.
“To constitute a qualified bid, potential buyers must, among other requirements, agree to comply with 23andMe’s consumer privacy policy and all applicable laws with respect to the treatment of customer data,” 23andMe said in the release.
23andMe customers can still delete their account and accompanying data through the company’s website. But Guthrie, Bilirakis and Palmer said there are reports that some users have had trouble doing so.
“Regardless of whether the company changes ownership, we want to ensure that customer access and deletion requests are being honored by 23andMe,” the congressmen wrote.
A motorcycle is seen near a building of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company, in Hsinchu, Taiwan, on April 16, 2025.
“TSMC is not engaged in any discussion with other companies regarding any joint venture, technology licensing or technology,” CEO C.C. Wei said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call on Wednesday, dispelling rumors about a collaboration with Intel.
Intel and TSMC were said to have been looking to form a JV as recently as this month. On April 3, The Information reported that the two firms discussed a preliminary agreement to form a tie-up to operate Intel’s chip factories with TSMC owning a 21% stake.
Intel was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC on Wei’s comments on Thursday. The company previously said it doesn’t comment on rumors, when asked by CNBC about the reported discussions.
TSMC’s denial of tie-up talks with Intel comes as President Donald Trump is pushing to address global trade imbalances and reshore manufacturing in the U.S. through tariffs. The Department of Commerce recently kicked off an investigation into semiconductor imports — a move that could result in new tariffs for the chip industry.
TSMC reported a profit beatfor the first quarter thanks to a continued surge in demand for AI chips. However, the company contends with potential headwinds from Trump’s tariffs — which target Taiwan — and stricter export controls on TSMC clients Nvidia and AMD.
A motorcycle is seen near a building of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company, in Hsinchu, Taiwan, on April 16, 2025.
Here are TSMC’s first-quarter results versus LSEG consensus estimates:
Revenue: $839.25 billion New Taiwan dollars, vs. NT$835.13 billion expected
Net income: NT$361.56 billion, vs. NT$354.14 billion
TSMC’s reported net income increased 60.3% from a year ago to NT$361.56 billion, while net revenue in the March quarter rose 41.6% from a year earlier to NT$839.25 billion.
The world’s largest contract chip manufacturer has benefited from the AI boom as it produces advanced processors for clients such American chip designer Nvidia.
However, the company faces headwinds from the trade policy of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has placed broad trade tariffs on Taiwan and stricter export controls on TSMC clients Nvidia and AMD.
Semiconductor export controls could also be expanded next month under the “AI diffusion rules” first proposed by the Biden administration, further restricting the sales of chipmakers that use TSMC foundries.
Taiwan currently faces a blanket 10% tariff from the Trump administration and that could rise to 32% after the President’s 90-day pause of his “reciprocal tariffs” ends unless it reaches a deal with the U.S.
As part of efforts to diversify its supply chains, TSMC has been investing billions in overseas facilities, though the lion’s share of its manufacturing remains in Taiwan.
In an apparent response to Trump’s trade policy, TSMC last month announced plans to invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. on top of the $65 billion it has committed to three plants in the U.S.
On Monday, AMD said it would soon manufacture processor chips at one of the new Arizona-based TSMC facilities, marking the first time that its chips will be manufactured in the U.S.
The same day, Nvidia announced that it has already started production of its Blackwell chips at TSMC’s Arizona plants. It plans to produce up to half a trillion dollars of AI infrastructure in the U.S. over the next four years through partners, including TSMC.
Taiwan-listed shares of TSMC were down about 0.4%. Shares have lost about 20% so far this year.