[benchaney]

SVB didn’t collapse because of the bank run. There was a bank run because they collapsed. It is true that the bank run may have accelerated the collapse slightly but they were in really bad shape before it started.

A lot of people want to blame depositor panic, but I don’t think that is really fair. In a properly managed bank, the assets exceed the liabilities, which means that if people want their money out, the bank can liquidate their assets to pay them and still have money left over. SVB’s assets are worth far less than their liabilities (to the tune of nearly $100B dollars by some estimates). Panicking depositors didn’t cause that.

[notmindthegap]

I’m not blaming depositors. In fact, I think depositors have a right to panic withdraw. They’re making a decision to take business elsewhere, as they should.

That that can cause or accelerate collapse makes me question the entire bank model.

What other model leads to instant death, damage to their entire customer base, and collateral damage to the broader system, when a certain number of customers decide to go elsewhere?

[benchaney]

I wasn't talking about you when I was saying that some people are blaming depositors. Some other commenters are really angry at the VCs that participated in the run. Their anger is understandable, but misplaced in this case IMO.

> What other model leads to instant death, damage to their entire customer base, and collateral damage to the broader system, when a certain number of customers decide to go elsewhere?

None of these things happened because some customers decided to go elsewhere. They were going to happen anyway. SVB was in really terrible shape and was already in the process of collapsing.