2 ms·
No--from your article: "In the aftermath of the collapse, federal regulators promised to make all depositors whole, even for those funds that weren’t protected
by pasttense01 3y ago
No--from your article: "In the aftermath of the collapse, federal regulators promised to make all depositors whole, even for those funds that weren’t protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)."
- latchkey 3y agoI wish I could downvote you because you didn't read the whole article and just cherry picked one single point. What happened is that the government bailed out the bank and the depositors. Why? Because "most of the accounts" were over the $250k limit and it would have been catastrophic to so many businesses that they couldn't ignore it. Contagion. Many were still left empty handed... "However, investors won’t be so lucky. While the FDIC can protect depositors from losses, it can’t do the same for shareholders and unsecured debt holders. In other words, individuals and institutions that owned stock in SVB Financial Group may not get their money back." Including us tax payers... "While you may not pay for the losses directly with your tax dollars, some losses could ultimately trickle down. For example, if your bank has to pay more for deposit insurance, it might charge you a higher interest rate on a loan or pay you a lower percentage of interest in your savings account." So yea, it was a giant rug.