> In some cases they were forced to used this bank by VCs. Hmm it definitely wouldn’t have anything to do with SVB executives wooing VCs with lavish perks and

> In some cases they were forced to used this bank by VCs. Hmm it definitely wouldn’t have anything to do with SVB executives wooing VCs with lavish perks and favorable terms to increase deposits though right? That’s definitely not how the industry works. Anywho - they are still victims and they should be made whole with remaining assets after FDIC makes depositors hole (which is a tiny percentage of deposits at SVB) - no doubt about that, but beside that these businesses and VCs are sophisticated and able to take on and assess risk. They were all calling to remove assets and urging portfolio companies to do the same because they understand the game. Not a lot of regular folks at SVB were. There’s a clear difference in sophistication. Next time maybe they’ll bank across a few organizations to reduce risk. Or maybe ask questions even. If you’re going to use taxpayer dollars to bailout these businesses in excess of remaining assets you may as well pay lifetime salaries for the employees who worked at SVB. Don’t see a big difference there. I wouldn’t support either action.