If you can, then do that. "Bank with too-big-to-fail bank" is a rational choice that you could make while doing a risk assessment.

Unfortunately, many small companies and first-time founders can't get a business account at one of the big banks. Hence: SVB. I don't think this means we should automatically bail them out, though.

>Unfortunately, many small companies and first-time founders can't get a business account at one of the big banks.

Why? I opened my first business account at Bank of America moments after I created the legal entity.

Opening a business bank account is straightforward. Unless there is a KYC issue, you can do it all online in minutes.

Because you're assuming just as much risk that one of these banks won't lock the entirety of your account for {reasons} while you fight it out with them.

In the case of many founders, especially non-US citizens, those banks won’t open accounts for them.

That’s the point?

The point is that everyone should bank with four too-big-to-fail banks and all other banks in the US should be shut down? That's certainly A Take. I thought we wanted to do away with too-big-to-fail banks, not permanently cement them into place.

You're taking a risk with those banks if you exceed the insurance limits, too.

I'm not, because I know the federal regulators have strict requirements for these banks and will bail them out if they did somehow fail for being a "systemically important bank." I'm not qualified to evaluate the soundness of a bank, and neither are the rating agencies (as 2008 showed), so I'm going to go with the banks I know the federal government will backstop.

> so I'm going to go with the banks I know the federal government will backstop.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. It's still a nonzero risk, of course.

But it's also not necessary. You don't have to assess the soundness of the bank yourself, really. You can bank with pretty much any random bank and get the same level of safety. You just have to actively manage your risk, is all.