[fbdab103]

>Whoever is buying it is doing so to get the customer list.

Not a bank or in the financial sector, but this makes no sense to me. It is likely fairly easy to get the list of VCs who used SVB. If nothing else, startup businesses which SVB catered to are significantly less appealing than they were one to two years ago. What fraction of those clients required low interest rates to keep the business viable?

[paxys]

It's easy to get the list. It's not easy to get all of them to move their assets over to your bank. When you buy the bank the assets are yours automatically. They can of course choose to then move it out, but why would they?

[fbdab103]

Putting all of your financial assets in one institution was just proven to be a liability?

[littlestymaar]

> but why would they?

Why would they not?

[PeterisP]

Because the hypothetical acquirer would have not only their assets but also all their other products - loans, credit cards, all the established payments to/from their accounts, etc. which are harder to switch.

[paxys]

Because depositors have no reason to get their money out of Chase and into another regional bank on the brink of failure.