<story><title>Swedish pension giant loses $1.1B from US banks’ collapse</title><url>https://www.thelocal.se/20230313/swedish-pension-giant-loses-12-billion-kronor-from-us-banks-collapse</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tensor</author><text>Risk applies equally to depositors. Apparently we all forgot that banks have risk, just less than our mattresses.</text></item><item><author>Arrath</author><text>Worse as far as the outcome for the Pension, yes.&lt;p&gt;But its a concept otherwise known as Risk.</text></item><item><author>Analemma_</author><text>I mean, that&amp;#x27;s worse. The depositors at SVB are being made whole, the shareholders are getting wiped out.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>tom-thistime</author><text>According to the article, the pension fund&amp;#x27;s exposure is because it owns shares of stock in SVB. That&amp;#x27;s bad, but bank stocks can be tricky. They&amp;#x27;re not saying they lost money as a depositor.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ctvo</author><text>&amp;gt; Risk applies equally to depositors.&lt;p&gt;Share holders are owners in the company. They are rewarded financially when the company does well, and risk losing money when the company does poorly. In what world are customers &lt;i&gt;equally&lt;/i&gt; subject to the same risks? They obviously do not get the same rewards.&lt;p&gt;Or do you mean in general? In that case, it&amp;#x27;s not particularly interesting. There&amp;#x27;s risk in walking outside.</text></comment>
<story><title>Swedish pension giant loses $1.1B from US banks’ collapse</title><url>https://www.thelocal.se/20230313/swedish-pension-giant-loses-12-billion-kronor-from-us-banks-collapse</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tensor</author><text>Risk applies equally to depositors. Apparently we all forgot that banks have risk, just less than our mattresses.</text></item><item><author>Arrath</author><text>Worse as far as the outcome for the Pension, yes.&lt;p&gt;But its a concept otherwise known as Risk.</text></item><item><author>Analemma_</author><text>I mean, that&amp;#x27;s worse. The depositors at SVB are being made whole, the shareholders are getting wiped out.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>tom-thistime</author><text>According to the article, the pension fund&amp;#x27;s exposure is because it owns shares of stock in SVB. That&amp;#x27;s bad, but bank stocks can be tricky. They&amp;#x27;re not saying they lost money as a depositor.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>NoboruWataya</author><text>Of course there is risk in bank deposits, but it is a rather more thorny (and therefore more interesting) topic because the risk is not the &lt;i&gt;purpose&lt;/i&gt; of the bank deposit; people generally don&amp;#x27;t deposit cash with a bank as a means of speculating on the creditworthiness of the bank. A pension fund losing money on stocks is BAU, but a pension fund (or any company) losing bank deposits is exceptional and arguably represents a failure of the market, regulators or both.</text></comment>