Selling Post-SVB: Trust Recalibration

SVB's failure changed how bank leaders think about risk, regardless of whether their institution faces similar vulnerabilities. The psychological impact extends far beyond the institutions directly affected.

The contagion fear. SVB demonstrated that bank failures create cascading effects that can spread with terrifying speed. When one institution fails, depositors at other institutions get nervous. Rumors spread on social media. Withdrawal queues form at other banks. Even healthy institutions face existential questions when confidence evaporates in their sector.

This contagion awareness affects vendor relationships. Banks now think more carefully about vendor stability because a vendor failure could trigger operational problems that create their own confidence issues. "What happens if this vendor goes down?" is no longer a theoretical question for distant planning documents. It's an immediate concern that determines whether deals proceed.

The speed-of-crisis realization. SVB collapsed in 48 hours. Social media accelerated the bank run in ways that historical models didn't predict. This speed shocked industry observers and permanently changed assumptions about crisis dynamics.

The previous mental model of gradual decline with time to respond has been replaced by awareness that catastrophic failure can happen before anyone has time to react.

For vendors, this means gradual degradation scenarios concern banks less than rapid failure scenarios. Banks want to understand not just what happens if you struggle, but what happens if you fail catastrophically and quickly. Your crisis response capabilities matter more than your long-term outlook.

Regulatory intensity. Regulators responded to SVB with intensified scrutiny across the entire banking sector. Examination cycles accelerated. Risk management requirements increased. The regulatory bar rose for all institutions, not just those with SVB-like profiles.

This regulatory intensification flows through to vendor evaluation. Vendor due diligence requirements have tightened. Third-party risk management receives more examiner attention. Banks need to demonstrate they're managing vendor risk more rigorously than before.

Post-SVB, certain evaluation criteria have become more prominent in vendor assessments. Understanding these shifts reveals how to position effectively in the new environment.

Financial stability scrutiny. Vendor financial stability always mattered. Now it matters dramatically more. Banks examine vendor balance sheets, funding sources, customer concentration, and profitability with renewed intensity.

A vendor dependent on a few large customers raises concerns that were easier to overlook before SVB demonstrated what concentration risk can do.

Be prepared to discuss your financial position in detail earlier in the sales cycle than before. Revenue trends, customer diversification, funding runway, profitability path: these conversations now happen in initial qualification rather than late-stage due diligence. Financial transparency has become a competitive advantage. Opacity works against you.

Concentration risk awareness. SVB's customer concentration in tech startups became fatal when that sector experienced stress. Banks now scrutinize concentration risk more carefully, both their own and their vendors'. The parallel is too obvious to ignore: a vendor concentrated in a single sector faces the same structural vulnerability that destroyed SVB.

If your customer base is concentrated in a particular sector or company size, expect questions about it. Banks want to know that stress in one segment of your customer base won't destabilize your company. Customer diversification has become a selling point that directly addresses post-SVB concerns.

Operational resilience requirements. SVB's failure created operational chaos for its customers. Payments didn't process. Payroll became uncertain. Business operations disrupted overnight. This operational impact lingers in bank consciousness as concrete evidence of what vendor failure means in practice.

Banks now evaluate vendor operational resilience more rigorously. What happens to their operations if you fail? What contingency plans exist? How quickly can they transition to alternatives? Operational resilience documentation that seemed excessive before SVB now seems prudent.

Different banking sectors experienced SVB's aftermath differently, creating varied implications for vendors.

Regional bank dynamics. Regional banks faced the most direct aftermath. First Republic and Signature failures followed SVB, creating perception that regional banks were uniquely vulnerable. Even well-capitalized regionals experienced deposit pressure and market doubt. The sector faced existential questioning that large banks and community banks largely avoided.

Selling to regional banks now requires sensitivity to their defensive posture. They're under scrutiny from regulators, boards, and the public simultaneously. Vendor conversations that seem to question their stability or add to their burden will be poorly received.

Position as partner helping them demonstrate strength, not vendor adding to their concerns. How do you reduce their burden rather than adding to it?

Community bank concerns. Community banks often lack the resources for sophisticated vendor risk management. Post-SVB regulatory expectations make this resource gap more problematic. They need help managing vendor relationships holistically, not just vendor products individually.

If you serve community banks, consider how you can support their vendor management needs beyond your specific product. Provide documentation that helps them satisfy examiner questions about third-party risk. Offer guidance on vendor management best practices. Become part of their regulatory solution.

Large bank positioning. Large banks were relative beneficiaries of SVB. They absorbed fleeing deposits and reinforced their "too big to fail" positioning. But they also face increased expectations about vendor risk management as industry leaders who set standards for the sector.

Large bank vendor requirements have intensified accordingly. They're more demanding about documentation, more rigorous about due diligence, more insistent on contractual protections.

Meeting their elevated standards creates competitive advantage for serving other institutions that benchmark against large bank practices.

Effective post-SVB positioning addresses the heightened concerns while avoiding the appearance of exploiting crisis. The balance is delicate but essential.

The stability story. Lead with your stability story. Funding sources, customer diversification, financial runway, profitability trajectory: proactively address these topics before banks ask. Banks are evaluating vendor risk more carefully than ever. Demonstrate that you understand this and that you're a low-risk choice.

If you have venture funding, explain the funding trajectory and runway clearly. If you're profitable, emphasize self-sustainability. If you have diverse customers, show the diversification across sectors, sizes, and geographies. Make stability part of your competitive positioning. Providing this information proactively builds trust faster than waiting to be asked.

Resilience demonstration. Show operational resilience beyond standard business continuity planning. What happens to customer operations if you experience stress? What portability provisions exist in your contracts? How quickly could a customer transition to alternatives if needed?

These questions would have seemed paranoid before SVB. Now they're standard due diligence.

Resilience demonstration isn't about admitting you might fail. It's about showing you've thought through scenarios responsibly. Banks respect vendors who engage seriously with resilience planning rather than dismissing it as unnecessary.

The risk reduction frame. Position your solution as reducing bank risk rather than adding to it. Post-SVB, risk reduction resonates more powerfully than value creation. How does your solution help banks demonstrate sound risk management? How does it help them satisfy examiner expectations? How does it reduce operational vulnerabilities?

This frame also addresses the "now is not the time" objection that's become more common post-SVB. If you're positioned as risk reduction, "now" is exactly the time, when risk awareness is highest and the pressure to demonstrate sound risk management is most intense.

Post-SVB caution has extended already-long bank sales cycles. Managing these extended timelines requires adjusted strategy and disciplined momentum protection.

The patience imperative. Accept that deals take longer now. Pushing for faster timelines signals you don't understand the environment. Banks are being more careful, and that caution is appropriate given what happened. Respecting the slower pace builds trust rather than creating friction.

Build pipeline accordingly. If deals take 50% longer than before SVB, your pipeline needs to be 50% bigger to maintain the same revenue. Plan for extended cycles rather than hoping for exceptions.

Value maintenance. Long sales cycles create value maintenance challenges. What was urgent six months ago may feel less urgent now. Priorities shift. Champions get distracted by other initiatives.

Keep demonstrating value throughout the extended cycle. Share relevant regulatory updates. Provide useful competitive intelligence. Stay present without being pushy.

When you encounter relevant information that matters to your prospect, share it within 48 hours. When they ask questions, respond within 48 hours. This responsiveness maintains momentum even when the overall cycle is slow.

Value maintenance also means checking that deal circumstances haven't changed. Has the budget situation evolved? Has the internal champion's position shifted? Have institutional priorities been reshuffled? Extended timelines create more opportunity for deals to drift. Regular check-ins surface changes before they become deal killers.

The multiple-thread strategy. Single-threaded deals are particularly risky in extended cycles. Champions leave for other institutions. Priorities change based on examination feedback. Organizational focus shifts to crisis response.

Build relationships with multiple stakeholders so the deal survives any single person's departure or distraction. Multiple threads also provide better intelligence about deal health. When one contact goes dark, others can explain what's happening internally.

SVB's failure created lasting changes in bank vendor psychology that show no signs of reversing. Financial stability, concentration risk, and operational resilience receive scrutiny they didn't receive before. Evaluation processes have lengthened. Regulatory expectations have intensified.

Vendors who succeed in this environment acknowledge the changed landscape rather than pretending it doesn't affect them. They proactively address stability concerns through transparent financial disclosure. They demonstrate resilience planning. They position as risk reduction rather than risk addition. They accept extended timelines and adjust their engagement and forecasting accordingly.

The post-SVB environment isn't temporary turbulence returning to normal. It's a new normal that reflects lessons painfully learned.

Banks watched confidence evaporate in 48 hours, and that trauma now informs their approach to every vendor relationship. Address that trauma directly rather than hoping it fades.

Vendors who adapt to this reality will find that bank relationships, once established, are more valuable than ever. They're built on deeper due diligence and stronger risk management that creates genuine partnership rather than transactional vendor-customer dynamics.

The investment in satisfying post-SVB requirements creates switching costs and relationship depth that reward the effort.