6 ms·

Is it a lot of money per person? No. But it’s plain lie that tax payers don’t pickup the bill. We do, every single dollar of it.

junofan 3y ago
I see the logic, but you can say that about anything. The bank pays for insurance on your deposits. If you want your own insurance or you don’t want insurance, you can certainly do that by not using FDIC-insured accounts.
- justapassenger 3y ago
  That’s the whole problem. It’s not about FDIC insurance - I’m happily using it and accepting the cost. It’s about arbitrary decision to guarantee funds beyond explicit FDIC limits and blowing up the cost.
  - junofan 3y ago
    The systemic risk exception is no secret. There are plenty of other places to put your money. This cost is not borne by taxpayers.
    - apple4ever 3y ago
      This article is about the government forcing the banks to pay, who will force it on their customers, who are taxpayers.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  No such thing as a non FDIC insured account. It's pretty much illegal to provide one
  - junofan 3y ago
    You can use a credit union or eurodollars.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
m00x 3y ago
It's not the taxpayers that are picking up the bill, it's the banks, and probably the customers. It ends up to pretty much the same crowd, but it depends how the banks will make up those fees on their balance sheets. They could just choose to reduce dividends if they wanted to.
- justapassenger 3y ago
  I’m not 10 years old to think banks will cut profit. Nor they should.
  - m00x 3y ago
    The point is that they won't assign the losses equally across all members. This might have no effect on large banks since they're getting more members from fleeing regional bank members, and smaller regional banks to be less competitive. Maybe larger banks will cut marketing spend, and just keep fees low, or hike up fees on low net worth members to cut keep the top X%. They will most likely want to make this loss transparent to the users they want to keep, and banks have a lot of levers they can pull. Disclaimer: I work as a SWE at a neobank.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > It's not the taxpayers > probably the customers Practically every person in the US has a bank account, so...
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think you'd be surprised how many people in the US are unbanked -- around 6M households (so if we go by the average household size, 15M people) in 2021. Granted, this number has been dropping over time, for better or worse. Also consider that most banks in the US are not being hit with this $16B bill. If you bank at one of the thousands of other banks, you won't be affected by this. And if you do bank at one of these banks, and they choose to increase fees or lower interest rates, you're free to vote with your wallet and move your deposits elsewhere.
- 3y ago

junofan 3y ago

I see the logic, but you can say that about anything. The bank pays for insurance on your deposits. If you want your own insurance or you don’t want insurance, you can certainly do that by not using FDIC-insured accounts.

justapassenger 3y ago
That’s the whole problem. It’s not about FDIC insurance - I’m happily using it and accepting the cost. It’s about arbitrary decision to guarantee funds beyond explicit FDIC limits and blowing up the cost.
- junofan 3y ago
  The systemic risk exception is no secret. There are plenty of other places to put your money. This cost is not borne by taxpayers.
  - apple4ever 3y ago
    This article is about the government forcing the banks to pay, who will force it on their customers, who are taxpayers.
johngladtj 3y ago
No such thing as a non FDIC insured account. It's pretty much illegal to provide one
- junofan 3y ago
  You can use a credit union or eurodollars.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

m00x 3y ago

It's not the taxpayers that are picking up the bill, it's the banks, and probably the customers. It ends up to pretty much the same crowd, but it depends how the banks will make up those fees on their balance sheets. They could just choose to reduce dividends if they wanted to.

justapassenger 3y ago
I’m not 10 years old to think banks will cut profit. Nor they should.
- m00x 3y ago
  The point is that they won't assign the losses equally across all members. This might have no effect on large banks since they're getting more members from fleeing regional bank members, and smaller regional banks to be less competitive. Maybe larger banks will cut marketing spend, and just keep fees low, or hike up fees on low net worth members to cut keep the top X%. They will most likely want to make this loss transparent to the users they want to keep, and banks have a lot of levers they can pull. Disclaimer: I work as a SWE at a neobank.
reducesuffering 3y ago
> It's not the taxpayers > probably the customers Practically every person in the US has a bank account, so...
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think you'd be surprised how many people in the US are unbanked -- around 6M households (so if we go by the average household size, 15M people) in 2021. Granted, this number has been dropping over time, for better or worse. Also consider that most banks in the US are not being hit with this $16B bill. If you bank at one of the thousands of other banks, you won't be affected by this. And if you do bank at one of these banks, and they choose to increase fees or lower interest rates, you're free to vote with your wallet and move your deposits elsewhere.
3y ago