3 ms·

Bank failure is completely orthogonal to fraud. Do the regulations cap bank's liability in case of fraud? If there are such regulations, I have not heard of one

Bank failure is completely orthogonal to fraud. Do the regulations cap bank's liability in case of fraud? If there are such regulations, I have not heard of one. > Bank which failed, it happened 10 years ago For what it's worth, governments have gotten progressively better at regulating banks in a way to make such failures increasingly unlikely. We have a similar system in Canada, with protection capped at 100k CAD. The last time they had to pay out was 1996. Failures were frequent in 80s and 90s, and then they just stopped. Not by miracle, but by regulation. The government had learned how to avoid failure instead of allowing it to happen and reimbursing the stakeholders. https://www.cdic.ca/about-us/our-history/history-of-failures/ https://www.cdic.ca/about-us/our-history/history-of-failures...

lostmsu 6y ago
It does not matter if a bank is liable if it doesn't have money to give back to you.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  You are conflating two unrelated failure modes: 1. A fraudster obtains your credentials and steals money from your bank account: The bank reverses the entire transaction and makes you whole. You get your whole money back, no matter the amount. 2. The bank goes out of business: Worst case scenario, the bank has no assets, the government reimburses you up to 100k CAD/100k EUR/250k USD depending on the country the bank is located in. A lot of times, bankruptcies are due to liquidity issues, not insolvency, so you would get back most of your money, even above the caps here, eventually. Also, because the government is not just the insurer, but also the regulator, it has gotten much better at avoiding bankruptcy and this does not happen often these days (at least in Canada). I am not sure what failure mode you are concerned about: one where fraudsters steal so much money that the bank goes under, like tens or hundreds of billions of dollars? And the transactions are somehow irreversible?
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    I am not sure what are you referring to when you say "bank reverses the entire transaction". Who gives you that guarantee?

lostmsu 6y ago

It does not matter if a bank is liable if it doesn't have money to give back to you.

smnrchrds 6y ago
You are conflating two unrelated failure modes: 1. A fraudster obtains your credentials and steals money from your bank account: The bank reverses the entire transaction and makes you whole. You get your whole money back, no matter the amount. 2. The bank goes out of business: Worst case scenario, the bank has no assets, the government reimburses you up to 100k CAD/100k EUR/250k USD depending on the country the bank is located in. A lot of times, bankruptcies are due to liquidity issues, not insolvency, so you would get back most of your money, even above the caps here, eventually. Also, because the government is not just the insurer, but also the regulator, it has gotten much better at avoiding bankruptcy and this does not happen often these days (at least in Canada). I am not sure what failure mode you are concerned about: one where fraudsters steal so much money that the bank goes under, like tens or hundreds of billions of dollars? And the transactions are somehow irreversible?
- lostmsu 6y ago
  I am not sure what are you referring to when you say "bank reverses the entire transaction". Who gives you that guarantee?