4 ms·
And if they do, then that's the right time to begin claiming that 100% of deposits are FDIC insured. That time is not now.
by colinmorelli 4y ago
And if they do, then that's the right time to begin claiming that 100% of deposits are FDIC insured. That time is not now.
- berkle4455 4y agoIt’s already the time. The decision was made literally yesterday with SVB and Signature.
- colinmorelli 4y agoThere was absolutely zero announcement yesterday that 100% of all deposits in all banks are guaranteed by FDIC. There was a commitment to cover 100% of SVB and Signature Bank deposits under the systemic risk exception. You can take issue with this, or suggest that they will offer protection for 100% of deposits in the future, and that's fine. I'm not going to argue that point, since I don't know what will happen next. But to say that the FDIC came out and announced 100% protection of all deposits is no more true today than it was when banks were bailed out in the '08 crisis, and there have been many, many examples of depositors losing money since those bailouts happened.
- berkle4455 4y agoI’m not talking about failures since 08. Just since Thursday. It’s a new policy. You can debate the nuances all you want, I’m sticking with the simple proof and reality. FDIC member banks offer 100% depositor protection now.
- colinmorelli 4y agoPlease link to the policy where the FDIC announced 100% coverage of all deposits in all banks, not the press release where they announced providing depositors coverage in two specific banks. Edit: this is not debating nuances. Insurance coverage is not what we feel and think it is. It's what is specifically documented and funded. In this case, the FDIC is neither documenting nor funding 100% coverage for all deposits in the nation. They may decide to do so, but they certainly have not at this time.