Silicon Valley Bank’s shareholders and executives lose it all, as they should. Depositors in good faith, however, should recover and have access to their deposits in order to meet their payrolls, pay their suppliers, and to prevent contagion.
@MittRomney It is not "good faith" to deposit money over the well-known insurance limit and then expect to be made whole. Capitalism doesn't work unless people who take risks bear the costs when they lose.
@PatrickW @MittRomney Those companies were expected and/or contractually required to put their money in SVB as a condition of equity investment by VCs and loans from SVB. They didn’t take a risk. They did what they were told. I know because I was one
@PatrickW @MittRomney Thank you for telling the world you’ve never had to pay a vendor over $250k, received a payment from a customer for over $250k or had to make payroll of over $250k.
@PatrickW @MittRomney Depositing money and collecting 0% on it for a decade is taking risk? Do you hear yourself user PatrickW?
@PatrickW @MittRomney What a strange way to tell the world you’ve never run a business.
@MittRomney If Sen Romney wants unlimited FDIC coverage, he can introduce a bill and raise someone's taxes to pay for it. This ad-hoc practice where we have a $250K limit but everyone assumes we will ignore it in a crisis makes no sense.
@PatrickW @MittRomney If you're a company who has to park 500 million dollars somewhere, what's your solution about insurance limits? 2000 bank accounts at 2000 banks?