3 ms·
> "This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank assets to make cust
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
> "This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank assets to make customers, not owners, whole.
From the broader public's perception, you're splitting hairs. The gov - at taxpayer's expense - *are* ______ing* depositors with deposits over $250k. Depositors who are well aware of the limits of what's covered. Depositors with more advisors than most taxpayers have bank accounts.
Capable and well educated people made poor decisions. Why is The Nanny State the solution? Again??
* call it what you want, but it's special treatment of the very well to do.
- madamelic 4y ago> The gov - at taxpayer's expense - are ______ing* depositors with deposits over $250k. The FDIC isn't funded by the government. FDIC runs and provides this insurance by premiums paid by banks. No taxpayer money is going into SVB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corp... > The FDIC is not supported by public funds; member banks' insurance dues are its primary source of funding. > When dues and the proceeds of bank liquidations are insufficient, it can borrow from the federal government, or issue debt through the Federal Financing Bank on terms that the bank decides. We are still currently at "using premiums" and moving into "liquidating bank assets".
- chiefalchemist 4y agoPremiums aren't paid by the banks. The banks aren't printing money. The premiums are paid by those using the bank. The sleight-of-hand wording is great for swaying preception but it an unacceptable deviation from transparency. It's like the saying "...paid for by a grant from the Federal Government..." Nah. It was - one way or another - paid for by taxpayers.