Huh? It's not about startups. It's about small software businesses that were moderately profitable yesterday and are potentially out of business today.
All of these companies could have sold their uninsured deposits at a discount, made payroll, and let their equity holders take the loss. This is what equity holders are supposed to do. Instead they went on an embarrassing twitter begging campaign and unfortunately succeeded. The whole "workers missing mortgage payments" or "destroying a generation of innovation" is an insane, buck-passing take.
They went around begging for bailouts when they could have just had the companies sell the uninsured deposit claims at a discount, paid their workers, and, as equity, eaten the loss.
What innocent? They could have sold the uninsured deposits at a discount, made payroll, and let the equity eat the loss. Instead they went on an embarrassing bailout begging extravaganza and unfortunately succeeded. Nobody, ever, should take any of these people seriously again.
"If the bank collapses then many startups shut down."
No, the equity gets wiped out, and if it's a good idea/good business it persists and gets funding elsewhere.
"You say it's a bunch of rich people profiting. Who are these rich people you're talking about? Bank management? They went to zero overnight. Shareholders? zero. Who's left? Garry Tan? He has the same incentives as millions of Americans whose retirement savings are parked in VC funds."
The VCs and other equity holders of the SVB depositors. Financial markets work: they could have sold their uninsured deposits at a discount, made payroll, with equity eating the loss.
There was plenty of private capital ready to step in and buy these deposits, at a discount of course, making it possible to make payrolls. You and your ilk just didn't like that the equity holders would have to eat the loss. Stop pretending this is about anything else.
True, but getting a board to be liable has a very high standard of proof. If not then there wouldn't be any boards, the compensation would not outweigh the risks.
Given the choice between bridging some cash (knowing that the full faith and credit of the US government backs the funds being bridged), or having the possibility of getting dragged into proceedings in the future, which at best would increase my liability insurance premiums, I'd pick the former.
