[tom-thistime]

According to the article, the pension fund's exposure is because it owns shares of stock in SVB. That's bad, but bank stocks can be tricky. They're not saying they lost money as a depositor.

[Analemma_]

I mean, that's worse. The depositors at SVB are being made whole, the shareholders are getting wiped out.

EDIT: I think a lot of people misunderstood me. Wiping out the shareholders was absolutely the correct thing to do; I just meant worse from the perspective of people whose value is in the equity.

[Arrath]

Worse as far as the outcome for the Pension, yes.

But its a concept otherwise known as Risk.

[jfengel]

These shareholders were presumably diversified. They lost money on this but will make money elsewhere. They certainly would not be totally broke ... unless management was incompetent, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

[tptacek]

It's better in the sense that equity getting wiped out is normal and would be something Alecta planned for the possibility of.

[vehementi]

As they should be

[joseftexas]

Only those 250K and below depositors will get their money back pay by Fed. Amount greater than that subject to availability of asset fire sales AFTER more senior debts repaid. Depositors are considered "investors" by SCOTUS and hence has much lower pecking order than other secured debts. They are higher than unsecured debt and stockholders if that is the silver linings you looking for.

[humanistbot]

> I mean, that's worse. The depositors at SVB are being made whole, the shareholders are getting wiped out.

As they should be. They took a risk and lost.

[AYBABTME]

It's not unreasonable to expect a stock to go to zero. It's a bit unreasonable for cash held in a checking/savings account to go to zero.

[tom-thistime]

It sounds like a much worse outcome for the pension fund, yeah.

[elliekelly]

Yes. That’s how investing works.