If your personal bank went out of business through no fault or gain of your own, most individuals would feel that it would be fair for you as the depositor should be made whole. That's the same with a business, and as important since this represents the payrolls of thousands of people.
Am I smart for doing that? Or am I dumb for doing that, since it sounds like I should expect to be made whole regardless? Should individuals not benefit similarly? What dollar limit would you recommend the FDIC or CDIC (Canada) insure?
But at the same time, you are also aware of the limits of your protection. If you leave all but $250k uncovered, you're willingly and knowingly taking a risk.
How is it fair to ask a bunch of people who had nothing to do with any of this to make the depositors whole from a risk those depositors willingly took? I really don't understand the ethical stance here.
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.)