Do you agree with US regulators’ decision to fully backstop all client deposits at the now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank?

👍 Yes (39%) – "It’s not the depositor’s fault the bank went under. There are a lot of small businesses and individuals who bank there and that would cause a huge hit to the local, state, and some of the national economy."

• "$250k may be a lot of money for an individual, but it’s a pittance for most businesses. By backstopping client deposits, hopefully companies will continue to have faith in other small/midsize banks."
• "The government has a duty to protect its people. We have learned a lot since 1929 and 2008, and if trust is necessary for our banking system to work, measures need to be in place to ensure those depositing funds can withdraw what’s rightfully theirs at any time."

👎 No (41%) – "The federal government will no doubt print money to pay for it. We've been feeling the effects of printing money in the form of inflation. We must stop adding to it!"

• "Another version of “too big to fail”. Set’s a bad precedent for poorly run banks and puts additional burden on taxpayers since that’s where the money comes from that the government uses to make depositors whole."
• "Rules on risk shouldn't be changed retroactively. The money to cover this will undoubtedly come from federal taxes, too."

🤷 Unsure/other (20%) – "I don't want to see a repeat of bailouts like we saw in early 2000s, however if my money as a private investor was in SVB, I'd want assurance it was still my money and the fault lie with some other party bigger than me."