People may want to reconsider what a reputation actually is, because it seems SVB was not a good bank despite its reputation. I'm guessing they marketed to dumb money; people who won't look past some marketing and attached names (e.g. Peter Thiel) and assume all is good.
In general, I think more due diligence is needed, even with a good reputation. (e.g. look into lobbying efforts. if they are lobbying for weakened rules, they may be violating/doing something illegitimate already a la FTX).
Enron was reputable, for example. Different situation, i know, but the point is reputation is great, due diligence is better (i don't know what good DD would be in the Enron case, perhaps the fact they pushed a 100% buy in would be one of many red flags, for example).
I do think workers should be paid, btw. However, the c-level team/s that made the choice to bank with SVB aught to lose out because it was their bet that tanked the company (or otherwise hurt it financially).
In general, I think more due diligence is needed, even with a good reputation. (e.g. look into lobbying efforts. if they are lobbying for weakened rules, they may be violating/doing something illegitimate already a la FTX).
Enron was reputable, for example. Different situation, i know, but the point is reputation is great, due diligence is better (i don't know what good DD would be in the Enron case, perhaps the fact they pushed a 100% buy in would be one of many red flags, for example).
I do think workers should be paid, btw. However, the c-level team/s that made the choice to bank with SVB aught to lose out because it was their bet that tanked the company (or otherwise hurt it financially).
Tis are my admittedly outside/naïve perspective.