In the past week three prominent banks closed their doors. On this week's episode we break down what's happening.


Transcript (this is an automated transcript):

MPD: Welcome everybody. I'm Mark Peter Davis, managing partner of Interplay. I'm on a mission to help entrepreneurs advance society, and this podcast is part of that effort. Today we have our standard partner meeting, but it has been in a bizarre week as everyone knows. We've had three banks collapse in the last 7, 8, 9 days, silver Gate, svb, and Signature Bank.

A lot of political decisions were. Things happened. The interplay team has been working around the clock to support entrepreneurs through the service companies. Lots of clients trying to figure out how to navigate this portfolio, companies figuring out financing solutions. Thankfully, it seems like all of the major immediate impacts have been unraveled with guaranteed liquidity.

But there is still a lot to come on this. There's a lot of implications. Both short and long term. So we do a little bit, we have a little bit of an interesting segment today. We actually recorded Chris's segment on the broader market hours before SV V SVB actually closed shop. And since so much has changed since then, we recorded a second segment and we thought the first segment was pretty good.

And so we actually are putting the segments back to back so you can hear a before and after. And I think they line up pretty nicely. and share really relevant insight will help you understand what's happening, why it's happening, and what it means. Enjoy.

Chris Zhang: Yeah. So first of all, this is the elephant in the room. We're gonna talk about it. I'm itching to talk about it, but before that, I wanna cover two macro topics first. Okay. And that are also important this week. And, but the headline to you, your question, just so that I don't leave it hanging.

Server gate is definitely much more benign situation. The way management handled communication, the way they actually panned out how winning dumps, operations guaranteeing its deposit base to be paid back. It's okay. This is, it's happened. It's okay. What's S VB on the other hand, is a totally different situation and it's looking like it's going to the gutters.

We'll talk about that and they're very different situations. So let's talk about macro first. Two very important things happened this week. First one is fed comments. Tied to inflation, tied to industry curve. We've been talking about this for months, but importantly, chairman Powell came came out on Tuesday or Mar, March 6th, I believe, spoke to the Senate Banking Committee.

And it's safe to say that the Wine liner summary is that he was a lot more hawkish than expected during his speech. And as he was very clear as well, and I quote him, latest economic data has come out stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated.

Okay, so this is something we've been talking about. We've expected this has happen. Market, apparently it did not. Immediate aftermath, repriced the entire interest rate curve now going into March 21st, 2020 second. F omc Mark is now pricing in a 50 basis point hike as opposed to 25. That will bring us to a 5% hurdle for front end interest rate.

The entire front end part of the treasury curve has also been repriced. We're talking about a 1520 basis point increase intra week, and the peak interest rate now has been pricing by the market is at 5.3 by August this year. But still for some reason pricing a cup by the end of the year.

So we're getting closer. The broader Highline is we're getting closer and closer to what internally we expect, which is a 5.5600000000000005% range of peak interest rates and staying there for longer. And so we're getting closer to that, which is a good thing. Equity of course, as we responded to this, intra day we intro week, we sort off a lot, even before whole SVP situation.

So all this I see is healthy and we're getting closer to what we expect. Okay, that's point number one. Point number two, jobs. Just came out today f the Nonpharm payroll data for February 20, 20, 23. This is the data that everyone's been waiting for. Again, the headline is very strong. We added 311,000 jobs, which is beating the 225,000 jobs consensus.

Interestingly, unemployment actually ticked up by 20 basis points, so now we're finally off the 54 year low. We're at 3.6% largely. This is because in February we added 419,000 jobs total into the labor. So labor force participation has now finally basically come back to pre pandemic levels. And a lot of that is led by, as we can expect, leisure and hospitality and retail a little bit.

Government jobs and healthcare. Transportation was a sector that suffered, but broadly speaking, labor market is very strong. One argument to that is the average hourly earning, so that, that came as part of the report. Average hourly earning grew by a slower than an anticipated amount. On the surface it's actually good news for inflation means people, as a wage goes down, aggregate demand should go down.

We're they're by slowing down inflation, but we don't really know whether this sort of slower than expected is due to the type of jobs that were added, meaning less management, more entry level jobs. Or is it because everybody's wage is actually slowing down? The grid growth slowing down. In the case of the first it's, it doesn't do much to do too much inflation.

In case of the second it does. So we don't know whether this is a good thing or bad for inflation, but at least it's trending in the right direction. That's it for the macro segment. So the wave is 

MPD: still moving through the economy, things are still going. Let's talk about the banks because that. That's the current, we gotta know what's, I gotta know what's going on

Chris Zhang: Yeah. Man, it's been a block ba bloodbath week for the financial sector this week. Let's just say before we delve into this svb AC on aggregate level, the s and p financial sector, which has traditionally has been a very defensive sector, was down 8.3% week to date for the week ending in ending on March.

Which is the worst week since the major selloff we experienced in 2020. Okay. That's the headline. Silver Gay, I think you've talked about with Brad. As I mentioned, they lost a lot of money in sort of treasuries, right? And of course investor withdrawing deposits, et cetera, which that's what led them to, to sell the assets in a, at a less than ideal time.

They're winding, their operations just go relatively smoothly. There's no hiccup so far. So that's okay. Silicon Valley Bank frankly, the way I'm seeing it now, as people still digest the news, they basically shot themselves in the foot. They were obviously aware of what's happening with Silver Gates, but for whatever reason, they've decided to come out and raise over 2 billion in equity financing in the same week where people are worried about surrogate and whole deposit base.

In their own words to shore up their capital stack to shore up their liquidity situation. People are obviously aware about this. So that trigger that basically pushed all the investors to to get a closer look of their balance sheet. See what happened. They effectively had to sell 21 billion worth of governed bonds at a 1.8 billion loss.

Right, and so that's number one. So mismanaged balance sheet on their end. Secondly, that's Mark. This SVB is not, does not have a well diversified deposit base. It's mostly servicing VCs, entrepreneurs, founders. We all knew what happened last year in in, in the tech world. More cash burn l, less validation growth, less money coming in, less money being raised, which means less deposit base.

More force with straw, which leads to more force selling at a loss. So this is a classic, classic bank run situation. Right now, what we have going the equity of the stock sold off, I think 60 more than 60% y yesterday during the day, and in the aftermarket sold off by another 25%. Wow. Today this morning it opened up another 46 to 60% down, which halted to the market trading.

So this is in fact to be like a Lehman for VCs and entrepreneurs. We've heard internally a lot of VCs are also advising their portfolio companies to withdraw cash if they have any exposure. User square ventures, a few other funds have come out publicly, given advice to their port core c. And so the background situation is being compounded at this point.

We don't know what's gonna happen because it's, we don't know the numbers. It's not public. We only have sort of their February numbers and don't have anything current. But my sense is that we, they are getting closer, if not already in the sort of in insolvent situ. Where their the capital flight is much greater than what they actually have as liquid, as part of the balance sheet.

So what's gonna happen? We need a white knight. They need a white knight. They need a consortium of probably private equity firms. I don't think any bank will come in here and help them out. And so they need a consortium of private equity firms come in and rescue them. Potentially buy all the assets.

And so far that has not been the case. They tried this morning. They tried overnight. Nothing. They're rumors flying all around. There's no concrete plan as of yet, and they need this capital fast. Every minute matters. There's more deposit being withdrawn every minute. And when they get to a point where this is truly insolvent, that will be too late.

So let's see what happens. So 

MPD: was S B actually in financial trouble, like real financial trouble when they started all of this? Cause it's, the major story is people got nervous in the context of what was going on in the market. The Silver Gate, everyone was nervous. They got a little bit of bad news from SVB and there was a run on the bank and everyone took their money out and that actually killed svb.

Okay. Were they actually in real financial trouble before everyone started pulling their money 

Chris Zhang: out? They were not insolvent, that's for sure. Just looking at their 10 K from February this year. They were not insolvent. They had they're not well capitalized, but they were not insolvent.

They incurred a massive loss in their forced selling of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities and just to, so I wanna understand these are fixed straight instruments, right? So as interest rate rose unexpectedly last year, they took a marked to market loss on these instruments, but they didn't realize 'em until they had to be basically forced sold which was what panned out afterwards.

So they were not inso. But they're not well capitalized. And more importantly, is their deposit base incredibly concentrated. And that's the point I wanna really drive through here, is because naturally the question you will ask is this gonna be su systemic? Is this gonna affect all banks, like what the s and p financial sectors has been experiencing this week?

My inclinations know this should not be systemic. So in that case, it's not so similar to Leh. Because most of the banks out, the big ones are well, very well capitalized now versus 2008. And they have a very diverse diversified deposit base. So any particular sector downturn won't affect them as much. But for banks that are, let's say regionally located, have a very concentrated deposit base and is now well capitalized.

And there are a few banks, there are a few names out there that you know you can probably think about similar profile to SVB that will be systemic. They will be in.

MPD: So it feels like the narrative lately, obviously, has been tech companies in trouble. We're it's the, we're the industry that's getting hit hardest by the overarching shift. Is this the, are we the bellweather, the canary in the coal mine of hey a tidal wave's coming, we've hit the tech industry and now it's gonna bleed through.

Or is most of the story about this economic cycle gonna be the tech industry? And then it filters out a little bit to everybody else, but not as big. I, 

Chris Zhang: so far, I think it's so very much contained in, in tech in general. A lot of it obviously is the valuation. It was the bubble that was created in 20 20, 21.

So far we haven't seen a really widespread implication to other sectors, and there in fact, there are sectors that are booming more so than people expect by energy and hospitality. So it's verti. So far is limited impact. Where are we in that cycle within tech? That's the part that's the trillion dollar question.

We don't know, because every week seems like there're there's more and more implication that, that are coming out. For instance, svb. And we don't even know what, how SVB is gonna play out because if they ultimately have to go through chapter seven, hopefully not. And how will that translate to.

The cash burns the loans, the operating loans that, that all these startups dependent on, GP commits. The, it's gonna be systemic within tech. If they have to go through chapter seven and everyone has to take the mark down. So let's see. We'll see how this plays out in the next week or two wild 

MPD: times.

Thank you, Chris. 

Chris Zhang: Of course, pleasure. 

MPD: Chris, it's been a hell of a week in startup land. We've never done this before, but the last segment we recorded before this fall of svp we're now recording a couple days after the fall. We just felt like we, I feel like we have to add something to get people color in what's going on.

And too much has changed in a few days. So what's catch us up. What's 


Chris Zhang: latest. Yeah, mark. I think the impact is not just in startup land. I think this has been probably one of the most exc, excruciating weekend really in everybody's mind. In recent memory. Friday, we absolutely ended on, on, on the worst note possible.

There was maximum uncertainty and minimum resolution. Market absolutely hated it. We're in the gutters by the close on Friday I believe March 10th. And over the weekend it was just zero news up until around right around 6:00 PM Sunday night, right on schedule. There was a joint statement that came out from the Fed F D I C and the treasury.

In what I consider a, an unprecedented move. Effectively everyone involved in the government came together and published a joint statement and effectively guaranteeing the deposits from SVB and Signature Bank. Signature Bank also closed over the weekend. And this is more to do with Silver Gate and crypto than sv.

And startup in general, but it shows you the contagion at that point has spread so significantly that it's causing all these second order, third order impacts. In addition to the accounting of deposits, the Fed also launched a what's called a bank term funding program, BT fp offering loans to all effectively up to one year maturity to effectively all de depositories institution in the us.

Who can pledge treasuries, agency debt, mortgage, back securities, as, which is basically what all of them hold anyways on their assets. And this at least temporarily has stopped the bank run from Friday. But it did not in any shape or form, stopped the volatility on Monday. On Monday and this is where the postmortem of this whole situation started to really pan out, basically.

I don't even know, they're just, every market was volatile. It doesn't, it's not just equities in the regional banks, which is what everyone's been talking about in probably media. It's everything. It's interest rates, it's equity, it's global equity, it's currency. Every single market was go, was going through incredible volatility, like what we've seen in the likes of March, 2020 and the financial crisis.

Just a few highlights in those markets, just so that people can have a sense of magnitude. Let's start with treasury curve. The two year treasury curve rallied a hundred basis point on Friday and Monday, and ultimately in on Tuesday March 14th today, which we're recording recovered 20 basis point, a hundred basis point move in a two year and a 50 basis move.

In a 10 10-year treasury, this is the equivalent to effectively a 25 30 volatility adjusted about 25 to 30% move, move in an equity. Incredible amount of volatility. And what does that mean? From an f OMC perspective, the that meeting that we're gonna have next week, effectively the market, right before Friday, before the collapse svb, the market was pricing in a 25 to 50 basis point hike on Monday, given the rates move, now the market is pricing in a 0%.

And not only that in a hundred basis point cut by the end of the year. So this has completely changed the picture. We've talked about this internally. There're obviously on paper, dual mandate from the fed inflation and employment, but there's secretly, there's a third mandate. And this th mandate, even though it's not mandated by law, Arguably the most important, the one that takes priority when it surfaces, which is market stability.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is I personally haven't been in the market in the past. I don't see this move as very unpredictable and unprecedented. I think that the way the interest rate markets are pricing these moves, how that we are shifting from a hiking cycle immediately to a cutting cycle.

Makes sense because this is the number one priority. The Fed needs to come out and accommodate the market instead of tightening the market and just intro reintroduce stability. And after that we can talk about inflation, we can talk about employment. Nothing else matters as much. And that's just the interest rate market.

We're, what we are seeing is a complete reversal also in the equity part. Kit, this is where things are probably the most volatile and that's received the most amount of coverage. The regional banks. Everything from second in command FRB to the smaller regional banks people never heard of, as long as they're publicly traded.

We're seeing shares moving in 20, 30, 40, 60% intraday up and down. It makes sense again because svb, yes, deposits were insured, but equity was entirely wiped out. Loans and bonds are absolutely impaired. We're talking about, the bids in the market are showing 20, 30 cents on the dollar, so it's a good news.

Deposits are insured, but absolutely hobies for any equity holder of any banks. Of course there's always a winner from all of us, and that's the big, the BCH bracket, JB Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, bank, America, sh the big bulge bracket. Banks have all gained a significant amount of deposits overnight, and the shares are fitting according.

I went to dinner last. Yeah, 

MPD: sorry. There's other winners in this too. I think the macro winners are the big banks. Yeah, and I've had some of those conversations too. The neobank are also crushing it. Correct. We're investors in a company called Roe and they they have a modern interface for a bank.

They've got a product which allows companies to hold up to 75 million of capital in one account. With F T I C coverage cuz it's like a MetaBank on the back end. They're spreading that capital across 400 accounts. They we're seeing all of the neobanks explode with deposits as people are looking for different types of products and solutions in the market 

Chris Zhang: right now.

Yeah, absolutely. There's tech solution out there, like you mentioned, that effectively spreads your deposit base automatically for you across 50 different institutions under the F D I C insurance limit. It's a smart move. It's a, frankly, depositors should never have a risk to begin with, but we're, the de aftermath is such that we're now in a world where we need to worry about it and.

Why spend all the efforts opening up on new, all the new bank accounts across the institutions, reestablish relationships when you can just, do it with one, one account. I would caution against con counterparty risk. Just make sure you're not taking a additional counterparty risk by doing this.

But I agree with you this, it's generally a good idea. So maybe let's talk about impacts. Yeah please. Short term, medium term, long term impact, and this is just my view. I did go to a dinner last night with a bunch of other CIOs of different institutional level family offices where we sat down and talked about this.

I think we all agree at the end that in the short term, we're definitely going to see continued volatility in regional banks. And this will largely accelerate the tightening of what is currently where we're currently in, where we are currently in the credit cycle. We're already in the tightening cycle, but now this move just accelerated that.

In the medium term, this is where I think things really get interesting. I personally think given where rates are and where rates will be according to the market. There's gonna be an accelerated weakening of the dollar as we first talked about beginning and the beginning of the year, and on the back of that, and of course as lower rates as well.

I personally think we're all going to see a reversal and in fact, a based stock rally inequities in the medium term, once the initial wave of fear and all the messages get got sorted. But there will be winners and losers. Of course, it's not, it's, when I say broad base, I don't mean literally everybody.

And then most sectors, but especially the big tech, which were really hit in 2021 and 2022 when the fed begin to really hike. And also in, in sectors that are already winners and will become even bigger winners like energy on the back of a weaker dollar and travel and hospitality. So there will be winners for sure, but the regional banks will be continued to evolve to be volatile.

I, before I even move on the long term, I wanna highlight one more thing, which is I think it is, it needs to be addressed that the regional bank serve as a, serve a very I important role in the lending and financial health of the us. The last thing you want is the bigger pro, the B bracket banks, taking all the businesses and making the entire lending market in the US not competitive.

So if you're a business you wanna borrow a loan, you want these smaller players to come in and offer you competitive rates that's accelerates your business growth and drives down your cost of capital. You do not want to only deal with trillion dollar banks. That couldn't care about you and give you the most horrible rates.

So there's definitely a role here and I really hope that at, vast majority of this sort of middle market and regional banks survive this fiasco. And that requires a lot of leadership. I think from the government. The longer term impact, and this is the part I think we've talked about also previously in the pod.

I think this is ultimately really bad for the dollar. As the reserve currency. This destroys confidence and certainly makes you question the trust. If you're international investor, you saw you follow what happened over the weekend, you have to think about diversifying away from dollar. You just don't know what will happen if this bank run doesn't stop like you.

You just hate to think about what could have happened and. And what that would do to what it, to what's already a very challenging balance sheet in the US go, in the US government, if you add another trillion dollar to our debt, what would happen to the dollar? So it's something I think no one's talking about, but I think it, this is the most fundamental impact out of this entire narrative.

MPD: This is the Ray Dalio thesis. Yeah that we're on a collision course with losing reserve currency status, which I don't know if people understand, but right now we basically can lend money to ourselves in any other country because everyone wants to hold dollars. If they stop wanting to hold dollars.

We basically have to live within our means, which is what every other country, more or less does. They largely spend what they earn, they borrow, but we are able to do it at insane levels because we are the. And the England was the bank before us until the sixties. They were the re reserve currency.

And there's no reason to believe we will be the bank forever if we have a huge debt problem in the country. 

Chris Zhang: Yeah, hundred percent. Let's see what will happen. We're at the early heating space. There's by no means the show has stopped. We need to, everyone need to continue to be alert and monitor the situation.

Yeah. Let's see. 

MPD: Thank you Chris. A quick reminder for everybody. Chris is our s e c registered r i a and nothing he said should be considered investment advice. Thanks, mark. 

Chris Zhang: What's up Brett? 

Brett Palatiello: What's going on? Mark? Yeah, this week has been a little bit hectic from a banking perspective. 

MPD: Yeah, but it's, it feels like.

One week after another walls are falling down, there's a ripple effect still happening. 

Brett Palatiello: Yeah. For people that don't know Silver Gate one of the early banks to actually embrace crypto and go all in on it has, is gonna be closing its doors. They let us know that a couple days ago.

They lost about a billion dollars last quarter. And, customers withdrew. I think it was like 10 billion. So it's really unfortunate because I think they were a tremendous. Boone for the industry because they a lot of seamless po process for crypto companies and venture funds to, actually start exploring this space.

So it's sad to see them go down. But to compound things shortly after S V B they had also said that they were having issues with their banking. But that's more holistic, not necessarily crypto specific. So they, they reported that they sold I think it was 21 billion worth of its securities for about 2 billion loss to, to shore up some assets on its balance sheet.

Began raising capital from a number of other venture firms because they do a lot of work with VCs. They provide a lot of funding for VCs and they do a great job. But unfortunately that didn't quell a lot of the concerns Wall Street had about it. The stock fell by about 60% yesterday, which is pretty crazy.

And that, I believe it went down more than 20% after hours. So yeah, even though the s v B thing isn't necessarily crypto specific to, there, there are a lot of people that use S V B for crypto banking. It runs with a theme of regulators really cracking down on banks that deal in crypto.

Which is very unfortunate because there's a lot of people out there a lot of banks that really want to comply. And there are people that are, have tried to build businesses that are actively looking for regulation and, ways to comply. But they're not doing that. And I think I had mentioned the phrase operation choke point, which isn't hasn't been confirmed to be, an actual thing.

But they're targeting the banking system to eliminate a lot of people's ability to transact within crypto. 

MPD: Okay. Hold on a sec. But the SVB part that's not related to crypto, that's ripple effect of the economy. Yeah. Ski, a run in the bank happened. A lot of VC investors sent out a message.

To their portfolio companies saying, Hey, go down to your F D I C coverage limits, which is 250 K. That further screwed up their balance sheet. Yeah. But the crypto side of the story, what was the trade the bank had made that got them in trouble? What were they doing? 

Brett Palatiello: SVB or silver game?


MPD: a silver game. Like how do they lose the billion dollars? Cause it seems to me you take in the money, you assign an interest rate, that's your cost. It's a chunk of your cost. Yeah. And then you go loan the money. Were they making loans into the crypto world? Cause that seems risky? Or were they merely holding cash assets for crypto related companies, or did the actual fall, the loss have nothing to do with crypto itself.

Brett Palatiello: Yeah. Obviously it never helps that the crypto industry was down in general in terms of the amount of deposits they had on hand. But the real issue is they held in their treasury, they held long-term tr US treasuries. And obviously with the big rise in interest rates and the convexity with the relationship between interest rates and bond prices, they had A pretty large loss on their US treasury positions.

So ultimately it just had to do with the Federal Reserve. And you can make the case that, they shouldn't have been in long-term bonds because of for that reason. But nevertheless, it was more of an economic issue. I, in my opinion, than it was necessarily a crypto issue. I, I don't know if any people know the story about Silver Gate, but they started as a really small bank out in California.

And when they heard about crypto they did away with the rest of their business and went all in on, on crypto. They without any regulatory clarity or anything like that, they just went head first into the space and they had done a good job and arguably could have managed their balance sheet a lot better.

But that being said it's. It's unfortunate that they fell and yeah, banking for crypto services is it's hard to come by nowadays. 

MPD: Okay. So it, it's a crypto bank, but the reason it fell is cuz they made the wrong trade on us interest rates with the cash? More 

Brett Palatiello: or less? Yeah.

More or less. Yeah. They were betting 

MPD: on interest rates staying low and they went. 


Brett Palatiello: And yeah, it's typically not that big of a deal. It's 

MPD: not how the, it's getting marketed. It's getting marketed as crypto folding, another, yeah. Crypto 

Brett Palatiello: disaster. Yeah. No, it doesn't have anything to do with.

Really crypto, it's related to crypto to the extent that, if it wasn't such a bear market arguably they would've had more business and, you wouldn't have been able to see the exposure on the treasury side. But but yeah, the way you hear politicians talking about it would make it seem like, not only is crypto reckless, but the people that quote are trying to be compliant with us are also reckless.

That I don't believe is the case. That's just, some showman's sh showmanship by politicians. Pushing their books. And a lot of these banks, even though they hold longer term treasuries there was a bit of a run that silver gate. But a lot of these banks hold the treasuries to maturity.

These are all mark to market losses. They're very, maybe another bank that has a similar balance sheet but didn't get negative publicity for one reason or another. And they're still up and running and we may never know if this type of a situation, if it were to happen to them that they would also.

It's partly a confidence issue that unfortunately politicians and people that are against crypto push this irresponsible narrative against Silver Gate. Which caused to run and then, exposed this riskier, you could say part of their portfolio.

But I wouldn't say it's tremendously different from what a lot of banks are doing. It's just, you don't necessarily either the risky part of the portfolio 

MPD: was US treasuries. 

Brett Palatiello: Yeah. 

MPD: So they had a lot That's hilarious. Lot. That's not the narrative. Okay. They had a 

Brett Palatiello: lot of interest rate risk, so 


MPD: It's it's interesting how delicate the psychology is for commercial banking, right? Yeah. If people are scared that the money's not gonna be there, you have no money. Everyone withdraws. Yeah. And your host. Yeah. And that's what happened to both these both these banks in one week. Yeah. So it's bizarre moment and a bizarre business in the.

Brett Palatiello: Yeah, and Silver Gate had a network that connected all of the crypto exchanges and made it a lot more efficient. So that's gonna be gone. So yeah, again it's pretty sad to see Silver Gate go down and, again, even though SB SVB isn't crypto specific they are certainly, embracing crypto.

Unfortunately they get tied into the negative connotations of being associated with the space. But otherwise they're just a broader venture venture exposed company. Thank you, 

Chris Zhang: Brett. 

MPD: Appreciate the update. 

Chris Zhang: Thank you, mark.

MPD: All right, so this has been a big conversation about all the things changing and what it all means. We've stayed pretty macro, high level in what, how we're thinking about this. I just wanna give a quick shout out. There's a lot of people who lost a lot of sleep over the last week. Founders, teens, not knowing what's gonna happen with payroll and their jobs and their companies and their life's work.

There's a ton of people at these banks that have collapsed that have just found themselves in a really tough situation. So just know we're thinking of you. We're out. If anyone needs help, definitely reach out to Interplay. You can find us at our website interplay dot bc or get me on Twitter at mpd.

But we're here to support.


Interplay Family Office LLC (“Interplay”) is registered as an investment adviser with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Registration of an investment adviser does not imply any level of skill or training. Information about the qualifications and business practices of Interplay is available on the SEC’s website at Interplay only transacts business in states where it is properly registered or is excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Offering of asset management services through Interplay is pursuant to an investment advisory agreement.The views expressed in this <<insert advert type, i.e., podcast>> are subject to change based on market and other conditions. The <<insert advert type>> may contain certain statements that may be deemed forward looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected. Any projections, market outlooks, or estimates are based upon certain assumptions and should not be construed as indicative of actual events that will occur.Information communicated during the <<insert advert type>> does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice but is limited to the dissemination of general market information. A professional adviser should be consulted before implementing any of the strategies or options presented. The <<insert advert type>> is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned herein. Neither Interplay nor its advisory persons render tax or legal advice. Please consult your tax and legal advisors for advice concerning your circumstances.