Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zfell's commentslogin

Another concerning factor is that many large VC firms sent emails to their portfolio companies (hundreds or more at a time) warning them to withdraw funds, triggering the run.

An alternative could have been for this group of already closely connected individuals to call an emergency meeting and agreeing to send the opposite message to their portfolio companies to avoid the crisis. Given SVBs issue was really about profitability and not solvency without the bank run.

I'm skeptical a real lesson will be learned here, and we lose the opportunity to build scar tissue. Instead, we wake up from a nightmare, brush it off, and move on.


It’s kinda like prisoners dilemma, except the prisoners can meet and discuss a cooperative strategy.


nice analogy ^_^


If a VC firm tells you to keep your funds in a bank that gets a run, and you lose access to it, that VC firm destroys its reputation forever.

Please think about the payoff matrix and the fiduciary responsibility of the actors.


News of which funds sent emails asking their portcos to withdraw funds from the bank that has supported this industry for 40 years is a reputation hit in my view. Although it may certainly not be a popular opinion.


This is a significant simplification of the matter. I doubt it works in reality.

Replace the words "VC firm" with "Sequoia" in the previous statement and see if it rings true that Sequoia's reputation would be destroyed forever.


Would take a massive hit for sure.


Could there be a much simpler explanation?

The most recent study the article sites (Morgan et. al, 2018) states that out of 468k people in the population "1870 children developed schizophrenia (0.4%) while 9120 developed a psychotic illness (1.9%). None of the 66 children with cortical blindness developed schizophrenia or psychotic illness."

If we don't assume there is a relationship between schizophrenia and cortical blindness, it's not surprising that none of the 66 people who had cortical blindness developed schizophrenia. Simple binomial approximation will yield a 77% (0.996^66) probability. Am I missing something?

Also I find the difference in prevalence rates of schizophrenia of 0.4% in the Morgan et al. paper vs 0.72% in McGrath et al. 2008 odd.

Morgan et al. 2018: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09209...!


Found a link to the full paper here: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2018-morgan.pdf

It explains the difference in prevalence rates: "While median lifetime morbid risk for schizophrenia is estimated to be 0.72% (Saha et al., 2005), many of our young cohort had still not passed through the window for schizophrenia onset."

However, their claim for a relationship is indeed very weak: "In our data, this dropped to 0.2% for congenital or early peripheral blindness and was zero for congenital or early cortical blindness [0 cases out of 66]. Our data further suggest that the protection offered by cortical blindness may extend to a broader range of psychotic disorders and that risk of psychosis may effectively be reduced to zero."

It's ironic that they start the discussion stating "The results from this whole-population cohort, although possibly underpowered, lend confidence to findings from smaller case studies". Yes, it is underpowered, and I'm surprised it was published.


I mean, if it is genuinely a whole population cohort, there's a legitimate question to what "power" even means in that context, because there's no statistical uncertainty. It simply is.

Whether or not hypothesis testing in registry data is justifiable was once the topic of a legendary fight in my graduate department during someone's defense.


No that’s not correct.

I mean if we’re evaluating the claim that no blind people got schizophrenia then sure. But the claim is that blind people don’t get schizophrenia, which is different. The population for this claim is not “all the humans alive” but rather “all potential humans” (which is not possible to sample).


This article is a great example of the kind of brain-washing that took place historically to justify inhumane actions. It gives very little attention to historical facts.


Here's an example

> Long, long ago, the Sahara was not quite so dry as it is now. There were rivers then, which have dried up since. When there was water, food would grow, and people could keep sheep and cattle. In those days there were several large cities there. But when the water began to dry up, the ground became sandy and nothing would grow. Then, whenever the wind blew, the sand was carried along and began to cover up the houses and temples. The people had moved away because their food would not grow, and soon the sand completely covered the old cities.


Good thing that does not apply to the output of the TV and movie industries.

I'd be worried.


Sarcasm right? I'm not even sure these days with the stuff I read on HN.


Yeah, we poor fish tend to be a bit oblivious of the water ;-)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: