5 ms·

But that's not a bailout. I guess they are just wrong?

• mlyle 4y ago
  Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. Calling it a bailout or not is based on one's personal biases or semantics.
  • tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    > Depositors received a benefit beyond previously promised insurance and benefits. ?? The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. They have never stuck to the 250k I don't know why people have the impression they are doing something different then they have always done in this case; I just it's just extreme ignorance?
    • mlyle 4y ago
      > The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. As I have already pointed out to you elsewhere, this is a falsehood. The FDIC is not permitted to pay out beyond the $250,000 except if a "systemic risk exception" is made. If you click on random banks in receivership, you can see the dividend payments made to depositors above $250,000. E.g. https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendindex?fin=10487 https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendinde... Sunrise Bank of Arizona depositors received 91.747% of their uninsured amounts. This is a typical outcome. Then you can find other banks, like Enloe State Bank https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendindex?fin=10531 https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/bankfind/Dividendinde... where the total paid was 39.662%. > I just it's just extreme ignorance? You should really educate yourself before you claim others are exhibiting "extreme ignorance."
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The FDIC has always made all depositors whole. They usually manage to facilitate a bank takeover which does that, or sacrifices only some portion of uninsured brokered deposits, but there are certainly plenty of cases where that is not the case.