This market resolves to however many companies have filed for bankruptcy, closed down, or otherwise are insolvent. This includes takeovers and company sales if it was clear that they would have failed without it. And the bank's failure should be a primary factor in their distress.
Resolves a year from now.
This will resolve to the most credible estimate someone publishes that I find convincing and most closely matches the above criteria, which includes media articles, but amateur research is very much allowed and encouraged.
(Clarification : SVB itself counts as 1)
1,000People are also trading
Crazy! FDIC board member says Signature was closed to send an anti-crypto message to banks. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/signature-bank-third-biggest-bank-failure-in-us-history.html
@LarsDoucet Signature Bank was not actually caused by SVB. See discussion here: https://manifold.markets/dmayhem93/will-silicon-valley-bank-cause-anot?r=WW9hdg
@Yoav oh interesting! That’s why I asked. I’ll go with whatever the evidence based consensus seems to be when I resolve, and I’ll ask questions like this to help get a final tally
@LarsDoucet i agree with @Yoav. I don't think SVB itself should count either. it doesn't feel like a natural interpretation of the question.
@dreev Signature will be resolved based on the evidence. But I’ve already declared SVB should count based on a pedantic literalist reading and I won’t introduce further confusion by going back on it now. Should have clarified at the start but it didn’t occur to me at the time, as tends to happen as reality exposes edge cases in prose
@LarsDoucet i think that's the wrong call. At least see if anyone avers they actually interpreted it that way? I'm not even sure i agree about the literalism -- svb's failure wasn't "a result of" its failure, it just was its failure. And it might not even technically count as bankruptcy, idk. @SG resolved one of these as N/A due to ambiguity about that.
@dreev Every time there’s a slight hint of ambiguity in a market I have to make such calls, but if you insist I will mark this N/A and close it
@LarsDoucet yeah this is always really tricky. I disagree with the call to count svb itself as 1 but once you say it then people start betting on it. I do think you should amend the description when you pick a disambiguation, not assume people will read through the comments. But for the current question, can we see if anyone speaks up that they ever bet based on svb counting as 1? If not, i think it'd be an easy decision to go back to not counting svb itself.
@LarsDoucet The problem is if I do as you say others will come out and say I introduced even more ambiguity into the market by switching gears (this has happened before.) Once I make a clarification I have to stick to it, and this one feels valid.
I feel like I already need to mark this N/A
For what it’s worth I thought SVB should count, but I didn’t bet. I also don’t like querying everyone it just invites even more nitpicking and then inevitably descends into threats to report me for incorrect market resolution
@LarsDoucet yeah, so tricky! It occurs to me i only bet down to like 1.7 so i won't actually be hurt at all if it does resolve to 1. No worries whatever you decide!
@dreev Appreciate it. Also sorry for being touchy, it’s unrelated to you, just caught me on a bad day :(
@dreev Yeah so I imagine half assumed one way and half assumed another, so I have to pick one, and extremely pedantic literalism is as good a heuristic as any
@LarsDoucet i'm skeptical that anyone assumed svb itself would count! But if it were 50/50, why not half-count it?
@dreev Because I have to pick a lane and stick to it? Best time is at market creation, next best time is now.
@DylanSlagh Most of their customer base is tech startups, which aren't usually good candidates for traditional loans.
@jack this is surely a special case? If they are truly going to be made whole then they have proof that they’ll get large cash windfall soon and they just need a short term loan to wait it out