3 ms·
No it's not because it only covering deposits. If you want to call it a bailout it would be an bailout of investment/company money parked in SVB but _not of SV
by dathinab 4y ago
No it's not because it only covering deposits.
If you want to call it a bailout it would be an bailout of investment/company money parked in SVB but _not of SVB itself_.
Furthermore SVB might still have enough assets to cover that (or most likely a very huge part of it), they just don't have enough cash/liquidity to continue on as a company.