[freedude]

Who were the depositors?

SVB's depositors were primarily businesses with more than $250,000 in an account. Over 90% of depositors(google for exact percenatge) had more than 250,000 in the account.

So who was the bailout for? Not the average guy on the street...

[yazaddaruvala]

The depositors were payroll accounts.

> So who was the bailout for? Not the average guy on the street...

The "bailout" (badly named) was for the average people working at these companies. Their families that wouldn't have gotten a paycheck. The grocery stores they couldn't have bought from.

Payroll accounts should be 100% FDIC insured the same why it works in many other countries.

[freedude]

"Payroll accounts should be 100% FDIC insured the same why it works in many other countries."

Perhaps, but they are not so it is a bailout.

"The "bailout" (badly named) was for the average people working at these companies."

That jumps to a conclusion and fails to recognize the business owes a debt required to be paid by law to the employee for the work they have performed in the previous weeks.

I don't want to see banks fail like any of you folks, but the reality is responsibility lies somewhere and that somewhere isn't in more FDIC insurance. Business management is just as culpable as the banking staff in maximizing profit and maintaining proper liquidity and insuring working capital is secure.

[yazaddaruvala]

> but the reality is responsibility lies somewhere and that somewhere isn't in more FDIC insurance.

Yes, and this is why $20 BB from SVB investors, hit $0. The bank management and investors were did have to live up to that responsibility.

Should they have to do more? Yes. There should be compensation clawbacks from the C-suite over the last 5 years or something. Lets see where this goes.

[JediWing]

I for one am glad that SVB depositors were made whole and thus I was able to continue to get a paycheck.

Getting a Slack from the CEO on Saturday night saying basically "we *should* be able to pay you this week, I think" is fairly nerve wracking.

[solumunus]

That’s simplistic thinking. The majority of those businesses would not have been able to pay staff and there would have been many redundant “average guys on the street”.

[freedude]

Perhaps, but perhaps the simplistic thinking is that the bailout changes anything. Are businesses which are trying to meet payroll now running a buffer in multiple banks? Are they securing the future of their employees by making sure they can meet payroll in an emergency? Probably not and as a result they didn't learn anything from the experience.

The truth is, this is the tip of the iceberg. Don't be sailing on the Titanic since you have been warned.