SVB’s tech failings were a problem long before the bank run that led to its demise, critics say
Nikolas Kokovlis | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Silicon Valley Bank’s historic meltdown last week was largely attributed to deteriorating business conditions in the firm’s concentrated customer base and an ill-timed decision to invest billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities.
But long-time clients and others with intimate knowledge of how SVB operated say the bank did itself no favors. Between the bank’s refusal to upgrade its technology to meet the demands of modern-day businesses and its treatment of many startup customers, SVB’s problems extended beyond its risk profile and a challenging economy.
An ex-SVB manager, who worked on risk initiatives and asked not to be identified, said the bank remained technologically stagnant even as it was a haven for startups that had an eye for cutting-edge software and products. As she described it, “the backend of the bank is all bubblegum and wires.”
Three startup CEOs who bank with SVB agreed, telling CNBC that the user experience was often clunky and at times, slow to fulfill requests.
David Selinger, CEO of physical security company Deep Sentinel, told CNBC that SVB fumbled its response to the Covid pandemic, after the government initiated the emergency payment protection program (PPP). The loans from the program were designed to allow companies to continue paying employees during the economic shutdown.
“It completely failed in the midst of all these companies needing to get their PPP funds,” said Selinger, who spent the majority of Friday trying to pull assets out of SVB.
Selinger, a former Amazon executive who has the backing of Jeff Bezos for Deep Sentinel, said his company had tried to use various automated services provided by SVB but ended up having to do everything manually, “clawing hand over foot to try to get to PPP funds, because the fulfillment didn’t work.”
“I love SVB, but that was horrible for our business,” he said. “They had written some code to try to make it faster and none of it worked.”
One CEO, who had millions of dollars housed at SVB and asked not to be named, described the bank’s system as terrible, slow and “the worst in the industry.” He said the tech looked like it was built in 2002.
In April 2020, Tech Crunch reported on other SVB customers complaining that the bank mishandled the PPP process.
CNBC sent an email to SVB’s press address requesting a comment for this story but we haven’t yet received a reply.
SVB’s swift collapse began late Wednesday, when the bank told investors that it sold $21 billion worth of securities at a $1.8 billion loss and was seeking to raise additional capital amid a decline in deposits. By Thursday, as the stock was plunging and venture firms were telling portfolio companies to pull their money, Twitter lit up with people offering advice and making pleas.
Some SVB defenders told their followers that they needed to band together and support the 40-year-old bank, which has long been central to the tech ecosystem. One startup founder, Robert McLaws, responded to a particular tweet and offered a very different perspective.
“As an @SVB_Financial customer for the last 5 years, they are terrible as an actual bank & are getting what they deserve,” wrote McLaws, CEO of BurnRate.io. “Their tech stack has not moved 1 iota, their fees are punitive, and if you’re not in SV you’re invisible.”
Villi Iltchev, a partner at Two Sigma Ventures and the author of the original tweet, responded, “I have the opposite experience. I have loved every interaction with them.”
Another founder and CEO, who’s based in Los Angeles, told CNBC he considered leaving the bank nearly a year ago after it took six weeks and five phone calls to transfer the funds needed to open the company’s head office. He has $750,000 with SVB, which is triple the amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The FDIC seized SVB on Friday following a run on the bank by depositors. It was the second-biggest bank failure in U.S. history and the largest since the financial crisis 15 years ago.
Banking regulators devised a plan Sunday to shore up deposits at SVB, as they try to quell a feared panic over the firm. The central bank said it’s creating a new Bank Term Funding Program aimed at safeguarding institutions impacted by the SVB failure. In addition, regulators said depositors at both SVB and Signature Bank in New York will have full access to their deposits.
Roughly 95% of SVB’s deposits are uninsured, which makes the bank particularly unique in that it serves primarily businesses. However, the risk of contagion led to a plunge on Friday in shares of other regional banks such as First Republic and PacWest Bancorp.
Lack of mobile security
The former SVB manager, who was hired to prepare the bank for a rapidly growing asset base, said that implementing biometric authentication on the bank’s mobile banking app was one of its technical failures. Startup finance execs were left with a “password-based login” to protect their funds, because building authentication into the app “was seen as too expensive, complicated to do and not value additive to clients,” the person said.
Even attempts at shoring up its internal tech through a partnership with payments giant Stripe, ended up flopping, according to the former SVB employee.
In 2016, SVB announced an agreement with Stripe to launch a product called Atlas “to give entrepreneurs everywhere access to the basic building blocks for starting a global internet business.” Approved founders and execs would receive a tax ID number, a U.S. bank account from SVB, a Stripe account to receive payments from anywhere and services like tax guidance from PwC, legal help from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe “and tools and credits from Amazon Web Services.”
But the ex-SVB employee said after the big announcement “technically SVB wasn’t able to pull it off on our end.” The lack of investment in SVB’s technology made the job of risk compliance difficult, the person said.
Atlas works with Mercury Bank and Novo Bank, according to its website.
Stripe did not immediately offer a comment for this story.
While SVB was “undoubtedly one of the best banks” for startups, the person continued, as clients grew they were “forced to switch” because of the bank’s inferior technology.
— CNBC’s Ashley Capoot contributed to this report.
WATCH: Silvergate Capital shares plummet after announcing plans to liquidate its crypto bank
Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.
It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.
Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
- You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
- You lose the adaptive air suspension
- No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
- Textile seats instead of vegan leather
- Fewer speakers
- No rear screen for the backseat
- No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway