4 ms·

How did the buyout work? Was the bank just temporarily illiquid and just need cashflow?

ensignavenger 2y ago
If you want the details, it is laid out here- https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2023/spmar2723.html https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2023/spmar2723.html Skimming that and other sources, I could not confirm the assertion that no net money was spent bailing out depositors. If that was the case, then the FDIC wouldn't need to replenish their insurance fund.
- dmurray 2y ago
  I skimmed a couple of sources and thought I caught that First Citizens paid zero, net of some guarantees, for "all of SVB's assets and liabilities". That was wrong: it looks like the price was more like negative 16.5 billion [0] so that was the cost to the FDIC. I agree with other commentators that even if the price was zero and the guarantees to FCB were never tested, the taxpayers still paid money in expectation - they took a bet without getting paid for the potential downside. I don't really agree with characterizations [1] of the deposit insurance fund as "not being from the taxpayers" - a fee on bank deposits is in other countries described as a tax, and even if not, the DIF is at least backstopped by the taxpayer. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/27/silicon-valley-bank-bought-by-first-citizens https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/27/silicon-val... [1] https://apnews.com/article/svb-banks-fdic-first-citizen-silicon-f6958f1fa87b0991cb525b0424c7a1cd https://apnews.com/article/svb-banks-fdic-first-citizen-sili...
- kccqzy 2y ago
  Your link says: > The FDIC estimates that […] Of the estimated loss amounts, approximately 88 percent, or $18 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at SVB while approximately two-thirds, or $1.6 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at Signature Bank. With the caveat that these were estimates and there was significant uncertainty.

If you want the details, it is laid out here- https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2023/spmar2723.html https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2023/spmar2723.html Skimming that and other sources, I could not confirm the assertion that no net money was spent bailing out depositors. If that was the case, then the FDIC wouldn't need to replenish their insurance fund.

dmurray 2y ago
I skimmed a couple of sources and thought I caught that First Citizens paid zero, net of some guarantees, for "all of SVB's assets and liabilities". That was wrong: it looks like the price was more like negative 16.5 billion [0] so that was the cost to the FDIC. I agree with other commentators that even if the price was zero and the guarantees to FCB were never tested, the taxpayers still paid money in expectation - they took a bet without getting paid for the potential downside. I don't really agree with characterizations [1] of the deposit insurance fund as "not being from the taxpayers" - a fee on bank deposits is in other countries described as a tax, and even if not, the DIF is at least backstopped by the taxpayer. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/27/silicon-valley-bank-bought-by-first-citizens https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/27/silicon-val... [1] https://apnews.com/article/svb-banks-fdic-first-citizen-silicon-f6958f1fa87b0991cb525b0424c7a1cd https://apnews.com/article/svb-banks-fdic-first-citizen-sili...
kccqzy 2y ago
Your link says: > The FDIC estimates that […] Of the estimated loss amounts, approximately 88 percent, or $18 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at SVB while approximately two-thirds, or $1.6 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at Signature Bank. With the caveat that these were estimates and there was significant uncertainty.