I find your comments very hard to follow. You seem to be conflating depositors and investors, liquid assets from illiquid assets, taxpayer dollars from FDIC in

I find your comments very hard to follow. You seem to be conflating depositors and investors, liquid assets from illiquid assets, taxpayer dollars from FDIC insurance funds, and so on. I was trying to make a small point that if the FDIC unwinds the assets of a bank in a liquidity crisis and the resulting cash exceeds the $250,000 limit for the depositors, then the depositors should get also get that additional money (side note: I think employees are even higher on the creditor list than depositors). You seem to be saying that the depositors should not get anything because "caveat emptor" and that would be a bailout. Then who should get that money? I don't know if the cash value of SVB assets will satisfy the $250,000 insured deposit value or not, I haven't followed the story closely enough. All I'm saying is that any excess that is available should be distributed to the depositors and doing so is not against "capitalist philosophy". If you want to focus the conversation on the scenario where the cash value of the assets turns out to be insufficient to cover the insured deposit amount, then we could dig into where any additional money is coming from (FDIC insurance fund and ...) or what the moral hazard of making depositors, never mind investors whole might be. I was just trying to sort out those scenarios a bit for clarity.