21 ms·

If we accept that the purpose of that FDIC insurance in the first place was to prevent bank runs. then, this "gift", is really the gift of stable, reliable bank

by ericb 4y ago

If we accept that the purpose of that FDIC insurance in the first place was to prevent bank runs. then, this "gift", is really the gift of stable, reliable banks. In general, this benefits us all. What we see at these banks is that the large shareholders themselves have enough impact to cause a bank run, and they don't have the security of the FDIC to fall back on. So doesn't this show that the FDIC insurance was never enough to do what it was supposed to? What is being done here is breaking the game-theory payout structure that causes bank runs in the first place. It will prevent the same bank-run contagion individual investors are susceptible to from happening with larger investors. If we accept that the 250k insurance is worthwhile, then this seems good for the same reasons. If your objection is that depositors were not paying to properly insure themselves, then you should be happy with what is happening--depositors will be forced to pay to insure themselves via the bank, and bank service prices will reflect the cost of being properly insured. Shouldn't we all have been paying the price of properly insured banks all along as consumers, anyway. Isn't this a move in the right direction?

blihp 4y ago
FDIC insurance was never intended to cover everything, hence the limit. It was designed to ensure that the general public[1] could have confidence that their deposits were safe. Larger players were also covered... up to the same limit. That is fair and reasonable. For those with significant assets supplemental deposit insurance products are a thing, just as home and auto insurance is, and these people/companies opted not to purchase it or otherwise prudently manage their money given the very well known limits of FDIC coverage. Why should I be happy that the rest of us are now being volunteered to pay for insurance coverage for the group most able to understand the risk they were taking and pay for it themselves? If that weren't bad enough, this new coverage only applies for some banks. This is exactly the socialization of losses that so infuriates the general public. Not only are we paying for it, albeit indirectly, but most of us aren't even eligible for it ourselves. This is yet another move in the exact wrong direction. [1] i.e. the majority of individuals and small businesses who tend to be less sophisticated. As a result this quite easily understood system was put into place. I also don't buy any argument that something average Americans understand is just too complex or arcane for a group of largely 'qualified investors' and VCs.
- ericb 4y ago
  > Why should I be happy that the rest of us are now being volunteered to pay for insurance coverage for the group most able to understand the risk they were taking and pay for it themselves? Because, now you don't have to worry about all the banks collapsing with run-contagion, which is a problem with large enough scale (collapsing the economy) that it does affect you. You should be happy in the way an apartment's occupants are happy when the fire department puts out a fire in a different apartment in the building, even though it "didn't affect my apartment."
  - cced 4y ago
    > You should be happy in the way an apartment's occupants are happy when the fire department puts out a fire in a different apartment in the building, even though it "didn't affect my apartment." We're being spoon-fed the not-a-bailout rhetoric by a bunch of pyromaniacs. Your analogy would be great were it not the case that this is the nth case of arson. We put arsonists in jail for doing things that put us at risk, why are banks different? The banks mismanaged their risk and here we are looking to blame lack of regulation and the government because it let an arsonist run amuck. I see no reason why we shouldn't all open a bank, be imprudent, and ask for a bailout, citing system-risk to the financial system should we not get it.
    - ericb 4y ago
      > I see no reason why we shouldn't all open a bank, be imprudent, and ask for a bailout, citing system-risk to the financial system should we not get it. How is that a good plan when you would lose the bank? The owners of SVB lost everything!
    - ezfe 4y ago
      It literally can't be a bailout [of the bank] if the bank ceases to exist: >an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse It could be called a bailout of the banking system or of the American economy - but it's not bailing out SVB by any measure.

by ericb 4y ago

blihp 4y ago

FDIC insurance was never intended to cover everything, hence the limit. It was designed to ensure that the general public[1] could have confidence that their deposits were safe. Larger players were also covered... up to the same limit. That is fair and reasonable. For those with significant assets supplemental deposit insurance products are a thing, just as home and auto insurance is, and these people/companies opted not to purchase it or otherwise prudently manage their money given the very well known limits of FDIC coverage. Why should I be happy that the rest of us are now being volunteered to pay for insurance coverage for the group most able to understand the risk they were taking and pay for it themselves? If that weren't bad enough, this new coverage only applies for some banks. This is exactly the socialization of losses that so infuriates the general public. Not only are we paying for it, albeit indirectly, but most of us aren't even eligible for it ourselves. This is yet another move in the exact wrong direction. [1] i.e. the majority of individuals and small businesses who tend to be less sophisticated. As a result this quite easily understood system was put into place. I also don't buy any argument that something average Americans understand is just too complex or arcane for a group of largely 'qualified investors' and VCs.

ericb 4y ago
> Why should I be happy that the rest of us are now being volunteered to pay for insurance coverage for the group most able to understand the risk they were taking and pay for it themselves? Because, now you don't have to worry about all the banks collapsing with run-contagion, which is a problem with large enough scale (collapsing the economy) that it does affect you. You should be happy in the way an apartment's occupants are happy when the fire department puts out a fire in a different apartment in the building, even though it "didn't affect my apartment."
- cced 4y ago
  > You should be happy in the way an apartment's occupants are happy when the fire department puts out a fire in a different apartment in the building, even though it "didn't affect my apartment." We're being spoon-fed the not-a-bailout rhetoric by a bunch of pyromaniacs. Your analogy would be great were it not the case that this is the nth case of arson. We put arsonists in jail for doing things that put us at risk, why are banks different? The banks mismanaged their risk and here we are looking to blame lack of regulation and the government because it let an arsonist run amuck. I see no reason why we shouldn't all open a bank, be imprudent, and ask for a bailout, citing system-risk to the financial system should we not get it.
  - ericb 4y ago
    > I see no reason why we shouldn't all open a bank, be imprudent, and ask for a bailout, citing system-risk to the financial system should we not get it. How is that a good plan when you would lose the bank? The owners of SVB lost everything!
  - ezfe 4y ago
    It literally can't be a bailout [of the bank] if the bank ceases to exist: >an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse It could be called a bailout of the banking system or of the American economy - but it's not bailing out SVB by any measure.