> If the costs are instead borne by the ... depositors of that bank, yes it will suck for many You should have finished your post here. Nobody with any exposur

> If the costs are instead borne by the ... depositors of that bank, yes it will suck for many You should have finished your post here. Nobody with any exposure to the real world should be suggesting if a bank's highly skilled risk management professionals working full time on assessing the bank's financial position with access to the confidential data can't assess the risk factors of the bank's bond portfolio adequately enough to keep the bank alive to continue paying them massive salaries and nor can any of the bank's wiped-out equity investors, the real problem is that Joe Sixpack just isn't motivated to spot it in the few minutes of his spare time he gets to ponder changing his bank account. I mean, you're in a minority of people so confident in your knowledge of the banking system you're willing to offer a diagnosis of its "main problem", but I bet you still couldn't tell me what's unusually risky about the composition of SVB's bond portfolio and what implications that has for your own banking arrangements now it's been in the news for a week, never mind last month when people would have needed to know if they wanted to still have a startup. I mean, I'm not saying people shouldn't learn lessons from bank failures. It's just that the lesson most of us learned is banks failed a lot more when they weren't regulated and insured.