3 ms·

FDIC can insure up to $100k (before 2008) and up to $250k (post-2008), so that's at most one person can get back, the rest puffs and it's gone. What crypto los

FDIC can insure up to $100k (before 2008) and up to $250k (post-2008), so that's at most one person can get back, the rest puffs and it's gone. What crypto losses you're talking about? The ones from centralized custody operators that hold your money in arbitrary way rendering your balance on web page in crypto currency or something else?

rtpg 4y ago
In practice since 2008 even if the theory is that it’s up to 250k in practice banks get acquired from the FDIC basically on the unspoken condition that all deposits are maintained at 100 cents on the dollar
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Its not “unspoken”, its the overt goal to find a bank to take over that will provide that. But SVB is a much bigger bank with a much larger share of uninsured deposits than a typical bank failure. If the problem extends beyond liquidity and really is an insufficiency of assets by any significant share, its going to be hard for a no-loss takeover to be facilitated.
aroman 4y ago
$250k is not the most an account holder can get back if a bank fails, it is literally the minimum.
- mirekrusin 4y ago
  It's the maximum bank can get insurance for.
  - brookst 4y ago
    No, it is the minimum , maximum, and only insurance the FDIC provides. Banks can and do get private insurance beyond that. And stop acting like any uninsured money evaporates in a bank failure. Actually probably just stop talking about banks. This whole thread is an embarrassment of “smart people with strong opinions about things they have zero knowledge about”.
    - mirekrusin 4y ago
      Well, thanks for clarifying, TIL that "(...) since 1933, no one has lost money due to a bank failure (...)" in US, according to FDIC. I wonder how this situation looks outside of US in more distressed economies ie. Argentina.
      - emondi 4y ago
        We had foreign banks who advertised that as a strength and sent their profits to their countries. But when there was a crisis they said we are just a local bank with the same brand as a US bank and won't give the customers their savings back.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> FDIC can insure up to $100k (before 2008) and up to $250k (post-2008), so that's at most one person can get back This is wrong for two reasons: (1) The insurance limit applies per owner per ownership class; its possible to have accounts in more than one ownership class, and thus more than $250k insured. (2) Recovery of the insured amount is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Recovery of additional amounts is possible, and FDIC will make an effort to make it happen, but that's no guarantee.

rtpg 4y ago

In practice since 2008 even if the theory is that it’s up to 250k in practice banks get acquired from the FDIC basically on the unspoken condition that all deposits are maintained at 100 cents on the dollar

dragonwriter 4y ago
Its not “unspoken”, its the overt goal to find a bank to take over that will provide that. But SVB is a much bigger bank with a much larger share of uninsured deposits than a typical bank failure. If the problem extends beyond liquidity and really is an insufficiency of assets by any significant share, its going to be hard for a no-loss takeover to be facilitated.

aroman 4y ago

$250k is not the most an account holder can get back if a bank fails, it is literally the minimum.

mirekrusin 4y ago
It's the maximum bank can get insurance for.
- brookst 4y ago
  No, it is the minimum , maximum, and only insurance the FDIC provides. Banks can and do get private insurance beyond that. And stop acting like any uninsured money evaporates in a bank failure. Actually probably just stop talking about banks. This whole thread is an embarrassment of “smart people with strong opinions about things they have zero knowledge about”.
  - mirekrusin 4y ago
    Well, thanks for clarifying, TIL that "(...) since 1933, no one has lost money due to a bank failure (...)" in US, according to FDIC. I wonder how this situation looks outside of US in more distressed economies ie. Argentina.
    - emondi 4y ago
      We had foreign banks who advertised that as a strength and sent their profits to their countries. But when there was a crisis they said we are just a local bank with the same brand as a US bank and won't give the customers their savings back.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> FDIC can insure up to $100k (before 2008) and up to $250k (post-2008), so that's at most one person can get back This is wrong for two reasons: (1) The insurance limit applies per owner per ownership class; its possible to have accounts in more than one ownership class, and thus more than $250k insured. (2) Recovery of the insured amount is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Recovery of additional amounts is possible, and FDIC will make an effort to make it happen, but that's no guarantee.