Silicon Valley Bank was shut down by US regulators on Friday, March 10. This happened after customers withdrew $42 billion – a quarter of its total deposits – in one day. This led to a liquidity crisis for the bank. With about $209 billion in assets, SVB has become the second-largest bank failure in US history, after the 2008 collapse of Washington Mutual.
While the full impact of SVB’s shutdown is not yet clear, investors who held stakes in SVB or its subsidiaries are already experiencing significant losses.
Temasek says they have no direct exposure to the collapse of SVB. However, they actually have indirect exposure. What a way with words.
In 2015, they actually acquired a 100% stake in Mumbai-based venture lender SVB India Finance. SVB India Finance, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group. The transaction was made at approximately $46.4 million. In that same year, Temasek renamed the subsidiary to InnoVen Capital India and introduced their operations in Singapore.
Temasek needs to exercise more caution and prudence when investing in companies, especially those in the technology sector that can be volatile and subject to rapid changes. Previously it was the collapse of FTX. Now it is the Silicon Valley Bank.
These events highlight the potential risks associated with investing in financial institutions and technology companies. While it’s impossible to predict every potential market event, it’s crucial for Temasek and other investment firms to conduct thorough due diligence and risk assessments before investing in any company.
Editor’s note: To those who say that Innoven no longer has anything to do with SVB – Innoven has similar investments in Indian and Chinese start-ups that led to SVB’s collapse. They follow very similar business models and pick start-ups with similar profiles. We will see in due time how these investments will end up, but either way this is an alarm bell to the lack of proper due diligence from such a decision-making process. This is still a form of indirect exposure.
Temasek literally said the collapse has got nothing to do with them and you said it sort of does and try to catch them in some kind of semantic arguement?
They literally bought over a subsidiary operation, rebranded it, and relaunched it.
It has got nothing to do with SVB collapse that is going on right now.
Agreed. The writer is just very petty.
Don’t waste time on him.
Isn’t acquired means it’s no longer related to svb anymore? So what has svb collapse has anything to do with an entity they sold a while ago????
The late Mrs LKY said in an interview that she wanted 38 Oxley to be demolished as she did not wish the privacy of her house to be invaded by people visiting it like tourists visiting Shakespeare’ s house ..saying .Oh! This is where they is where they had their meals .. .etc
LKY was aware that the value of the real estate around 38 Oxley, said when their house was demolished it would free the area around it . Both Mr and Mrs Lee unequivocally articulated their instructions to demolish 38 Oxley Road. Why is this subject being revived again? The PM already got the Cabinetry behind him. Two out of three children confirmed their parents’ wishes to have 38 demolished.
Singaporeans are asking. Is it to prevent the younger son from running for President? The same way Biden is reviving past events to tarnish Trump ?
Temasek made rotten deals ending in humongous blinding blunders yet Ho Ching like 38 Oxley is still standing.
So inept CEOs get summoned to court as well ?
LHL should step down with Ho Ching now and relinquish their duties while it is still possible to redeem the little that’s left.
Fights in court should be fairly fought.
What is the real reason for PM not demolishing 38 ?
There is a caveat with eternal consequences for mortal men:
“Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Btw I admired LKY and wish his children would choose the way of integrity and sagacity.
May Singapore be founded on righteousness and justice
Please join in Malaysia n let Malaysian people rule Singapore same last history where Singapore is part of Tanah Melayu. Malaysia very good manage for all races n religion benefits ,Malaysia got many resources n rich country to support Singaporean
Simply fulfill the wishes of deceased. Fulfilment and respect for individual are good values.
Simply fulfill the wishes of deceased. Fulfilment and respect for individual are good values. Godly fear roots one I righteous path.
Trying to hide lousy investment?
Don’t be daft. If Temasek acquired 100% of this entity in 2015 (a good 8 years before the current debacle, mind you), then how can it even still be considered a subsidiary of SVB? Clearly it isn’t an SVB subsidiary now. It was sold away by SVB 8 years ago.
Lol how can you own 100% in a “wholly owned subsid”?! Then it’s no longer wholly owned or even partly owned by SVB!
Thank you for reporting on issues we would not see in mainstream media.
How does Temasek own a 100% stake in SVB India Finance when…..it is also a wholly owned subsidiary of SVB? Get your shit together please.
Temasek and it’s portfolio companies seem to have gotten themselves involved in India a lot in recent times. We need to check on their return and merit.
Temasek has a record for telling the good news but not the bad news. Selective reporting. I noticed that Temasek judgement or rather over-conifdence is getting worse. For FTX case, Temasek suppoaedly carried out 9 months of due diligence according to them. It must be complacency. It is high time that Temasek reviews its operations, policies and relevant staff.
You seem to be confuse with investment in SVB and buying over a subsidiary of SVB. They are very different things. Since the entity has been bought over, the business and accounts in that entity has nothing to do with SVB anymore.
I can’t even begin to fathom the stupidity of this author and pointlessness of this article.
If Temasek acquired 100% of the subsidiary, it means it became Temasek’s subsidiary. There is no connection with SVB after that.
If Temasek has a 100% stake then how is it a SVB wholly owned subsidiary?
How is it a SVB subsi if 100% is acquired? It would basically be Temasek’s subsi… Please upgrade your editor… Otherwise your slamming becomes a joke…
Pretty stupid post. If Temasek acquired 100% interest in 2015, then it’s completely owned by Temasek & has nothing to do with SVB anymore.
It doesn’t matter if SVB made a trillion or lost a trillion. It’s not their asset anymore.
Nice try buddy.
How can Temasek own 100% if it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SVB? This math doesn’t add up.
How is it that when someone owns a 100% stake, it still belongs/appear as a subsidiary of it’s previous owner. Please have some common sense
Please do more due diligence otherwise your website loses it’s last drop of credibility.. sigh
bro you high or what. if temasek owns 100%, how the fuck can it be SVBs subsidiary still.
If they bought a 100% stake, how can the unit still be a subsidiary of SVB?
So if I buy 100% of a BMW, this BMW is still owned by BMW?
What a headline? … trying to smear Temasek & create fake news ! The writer does not even understood enough the SVB debacle and what is ownership,
When one bought over an asset/company, change its name … I do not see how it is still related to the ex-owner.
Yet, the writer still try to write “confidently” to give his 2 cents worth of uncalled advice to Temasek. We need objective & accountable journalist.
How can it be a subsidiary of SVB yet 100% owned by another party?
This journalist have no clue about company structures at all.
Stir Shit only.
Should not even be called a journalist.
See their PL statements if any coverup take place. Any dividend payment is what I care as a bond holder.
Comments are closed.