Shareholders are wiped out, so there will still be quite a bit of market scrutiny on banks.
Edit: just to point out that I'm not claiming this is "not a bailout because shareholders were wiped out". It's a bailout of course.
Edit: just to point out that I'm not claiming this is "not a bailout because shareholders were wiped out". It's a bailout of course.
Obviously they were getting perks working with 'Silicon Valley Bank' that didn't exist at say, Wells Fargo. No farmer in America was banking there because, hey, that's obviously kind of a sketchy bank.
There was a reward being given to the wealthy depositors, and none bothered to investigate the associated risk. Well, actually, Thiel did, noticed the risk, and pulled out his companies. Why should we bail out the people who missed this?
Wtf are you talking about? It was the 20th largest bank in the country. It wasn’t some sketchy thing exclusively for startups.
And the depositors (VC or not) are at fault for putting their money in a risky bank.
The only people who are not at fault are the ones who are being forced to pay for the mistakes.
Edit: I guess the point is that without the threat of depositor scrutiny, shareholders would have no reason to care about SVB's poor investment decisions, since they were only a problem in a bank run scenario caused by depositors. Failing that, the only risk to shareholders would be regulators, and regulators weren't doing anything about this problem, they were enabling it. I think you're right about that.