Patio11 is just responding to any interpretation of the CEO's comments.
If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it.
And right after the solvency discussion, patio11 goes on to list 5 banks in the last decade that were directly closed because of BSA issues.
>If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it.
The CEO's assertion isn't a non-sequitur. It supports the claim he makes in the next sentence, which is the actual criticism of patio11's piece.
Let's simplify the example:
>>CEO: Arnold Schwarzenegger won Mr. Universe four times in the late 60s. Your implication that Schwarzenegger was physically unfit in the 1960s doesn't comport with any reasonable definition of physical fitness.
>Critic: Had we stated or implied that Arnold Schwarzenegger did not win Mr. Universe, that would have been very improper.
Is it obvious in that case that the critic is not addressing the CEO's actual point?
You can imply that Arnold Schwarzenegger is physically unfit without specifically claiming that he never won Mr. Universe just like you can imply that Silvergate was doomed for shutdown by regulators without specifically saying that Silvergate was insolvent.
If the CEO doesn't think Silvergate being solvent was relevant then why did he bring it up? You could assume incompetency on behalf of the CEO to bring up a non-sequitor but why bother assuming when you can just add words to address it.
And right after the solvency discussion, patio11 goes on to list 5 banks in the last decade that were directly closed because of BSA issues.