Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No it's not because it only covering deposits.

If you want to call it a bailout it would be an bailout of investment/company money parked in SVB but _not of SVB itself_.

Furthermore SVB might still have enough assets to cover that (or most likely a very huge part of it), they just don't have enough cash/liquidity to continue on as a company.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: