Comments
The FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury announced that depositors will be fully protected, and have access to all of their money starting 2023-03-13, so any EA-destined funds at SVB should be fine.
Curated and popular this week
A preliminary estimate, and a request for better ones.
Summary
I believe the standard literature estimates for the number of DALYs attributable to a case of stunting are too low, largely because they don’t account for the long term effects. This means that childhood nutritional interventions that reduce the prevalence of stunting may be substantially more cost-effective than previously believed.
Epistemic status
Exploratory and back-o...
Note: This post was crossposted from Planned Obsolescence by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.
Subtitle: It’s a major warning shot, and might be the last one we get
All opinions are my personal view, and don’t represent my employer or fellow investigators.
This week, METR and Redwood Research published...
66
Overview
This post summarizes a new preprint on alternative proteins from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab: New alternatives, same orders. We investigated 19...
Recent opportunities to take action
[Update: As to depositors, see Jeff's comment.]
Probably very little? While there's a chance that depositors will take a haircut, that haircut is likely to be modest. The larger issue for depositors may be loss of access to funds for a while, although I expect next week's advance payment will be substantial. And if I had money, I'd lend it with very little hesitation with the uninsured deposits as collateral -- would probably want something like 1.10 in deposits backing 1 in loans to be safe.
Such a large percentage of SVB deposits were uninsured that there isn't going to be a concentration of losses in that class the way there might be at other banks.
If a major funder has significant exposure to SVB bonds or stock, that might be a different story.