In addition to the increased competition from big auto manufacturers, there are also now many venture-backed startups that are now kicking tires within the electric vehicle industry. According to Tracxn, a startup intelligence platform, some of Tesla’s rivals include Faraday Future, NextEV, and Atieva. This set of companies has raised hundreds of millions from prominent venture capitalists in a bold effort to emulate the success of Tesla, which had its shares skyrocket from $17 to north of $200 since the company’s 2010 IPO.
Tesla’s Rivals
Faraday Future is possibly one of the more interesting names on this list. Backed by Chinese internet billionaire Jia Yueting, the company is notoriously secretive and hasn’t publicly revealed its CEO. It has however, hinted that its technology could potentially help mount a serious challenge to Tesla. Faraday Future executive Nick Sampson, the former head of vehicle and chassis engineering at Tesla, said that the company’s goal was to “revolutionize mobility the same way the iPhone revolutionized the phone industry”. The company plans to build vehicles with a Variable Platform Architecture (VPA), which allows for vehicles to be built with multiple motors, along with powertrain configurations that can be customized for specific power, range and driving dynamics. Faraday Future recently broke ground on its $1 billion Nevada factory, aiming to launch its first vehicle for sale in 2017. NextEV, another EV startup with Chinese connections, has reportedly raised more than $500 million from big names including Sequoia Capital, Tencent, and Joy Capital. Started by William Li, who previously founded the largest provider of car-pricing data to Chinese dealers, the company has a similar vision to that of Faraday Future: it plans to focus on connectivity and infotainment features to take the EV beyond just a form of transportation. To help guide in this plan, NextEV has hired Martin Leach, who previously served as the president of Ford Europe and also the CEO of Maserati. Lastly, Atieva has made recent ground in the EV market after securing the majority-backing of one of China’s largest automakers. Founded in 2007 by Bernard Tse, who was also originally on Tesla’s Board of Directors, Atieva initially planned to provide monitoring software for electric vehicle battery packs. Today, the company has now reportedly moved towards manufacturing EVs with the vision of “redefining what a car can be by building an iconic new vehicle from the ground up”. Building an electric car company from the ground up is a daunting task, and many imitators have already failed spectacularly. Fisker Automotive, for example, famously declared bankruptcy in 2013 even after burning through $1.4 billion in funding while losing $35,000 per car. It’s possible this list may look way different in the near future.
on But fast forward to the end of last week, and SVB was shuttered by regulators after a panic-induced bank run. So, how exactly did this happen? We dig in below.
Road to a Bank Run
SVB and its customers generally thrived during the low interest rate era, but as rates rose, SVB found itself more exposed to risk than a typical bank. Even so, at the end of 2022, the bank’s balance sheet showed no cause for alarm.
As well, the bank was viewed positively in a number of places. Most Wall Street analyst ratings were overwhelmingly positive on the bank’s stock, and Forbes had just added the bank to its Financial All-Stars list. Outward signs of trouble emerged on Wednesday, March 8th, when SVB surprised investors with news that the bank needed to raise more than $2 billion to shore up its balance sheet. The reaction from prominent venture capitalists was not positive, with Coatue Management, Union Square Ventures, and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund moving to limit exposure to the 40-year-old bank. The influence of these firms is believed to have added fuel to the fire, and a bank run ensued. Also influencing decision making was the fact that SVB had the highest percentage of uninsured domestic deposits of all big banks. These totaled nearly $152 billion, or about 97% of all deposits. By the end of the day, customers had tried to withdraw $42 billion in deposits.
What Triggered the SVB Collapse?
While the collapse of SVB took place over the course of 44 hours, its roots trace back to the early pandemic years. In 2021, U.S. venture capital-backed companies raised a record $330 billion—double the amount seen in 2020. At the time, interest rates were at rock-bottom levels to help buoy the economy. Matt Levine sums up the situation well: “When interest rates are low everywhere, a dollar in 20 years is about as good as a dollar today, so a startup whose business model is “we will lose money for a decade building artificial intelligence, and then rake in lots of money in the far future” sounds pretty good. When interest rates are higher, a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow, so investors want cash flows. When interest rates were low for a long time, and suddenly become high, all the money that was rushing to your customers is suddenly cut off.” Source: Pitchbook Why is this important? During this time, SVB received billions of dollars from these venture-backed clients. In one year alone, their deposits increased 100%. They took these funds and invested them in longer-term bonds. As a result, this created a dangerous trap as the company expected rates would remain low. During this time, SVB invested in bonds at the top of the market. As interest rates rose higher and bond prices declined, SVB started taking major losses on their long-term bond holdings.
Losses Fueling a Liquidity Crunch
When SVB reported its fourth quarter results in early 2023, Moody’s Investor Service, a credit rating agency took notice. In early March, it said that SVB was at high risk for a downgrade due to its significant unrealized losses. In response, SVB looked to sell $2 billion of its investments at a loss to help boost liquidity for its struggling balance sheet. Soon, more hedge funds and venture investors realized SVB could be on thin ice. Depositors withdrew funds in droves, spurring a liquidity squeeze and prompting California regulators and the FDIC to step in and shut down the bank.
What Happens Now?
While much of SVB’s activity was focused on the tech sector, the bank’s shocking collapse has rattled a financial sector that is already on edge.
The four biggest U.S. banks lost a combined $52 billion the day before the SVB collapse. On Friday, other banking stocks saw double-digit drops, including Signature Bank (-23%), First Republic (-15%), and Silvergate Capital (-11%).
Source: Morningstar Direct. *Represents March 9 data, trading halted on March 10.
When the dust settles, it’s hard to predict the ripple effects that will emerge from this dramatic event. For investors, the Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen announced confidence in the banking system remaining resilient, noting that regulators have the proper tools in response to the issue.
But others have seen trouble brewing as far back as 2020 (or earlier) when commercial banking assets were skyrocketing and banks were buying bonds when rates were low.
