Garry I have a question (and this is not intended to be snarky).
Why should a company, perhaps a slower and more risk-averse company who intentionally chose a different, safer banking institution to do business with, do they not get to benefit from their discretion in choosing that banking partner? One could argue that choice put them at a disadvantage against their fast-moving competitors, who chose fast-moving “corporate infrastructure” like SVB.
If bailouts like this take place, how do those companies ever benefit from being prudent? Should nobody bother?
(FWIW, this is just a thought exercise, I am not opposed to the petition.)
Why should a company, perhaps a slower and more risk-averse company who intentionally chose a different, safer banking institution to do business with, do they not get to benefit from their discretion in choosing that banking partner? One could argue that choice put them at a disadvantage against their fast-moving competitors, who chose fast-moving “corporate infrastructure” like SVB.
If bailouts like this take place, how do those companies ever benefit from being prudent? Should nobody bother?
(FWIW, this is just a thought exercise, I am not opposed to the petition.)