3 ms·

Ah-hem SVB?

• vallassy 5mo ago
  An outlier in historical terms (i.e. the last 20 years) https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• matwood 5mo ago
  SVB was not bailed out. Depositors were made whole (as they should be), but shareholders were completely wiped out (as they should have been).
  • boringg 5mo ago
    My point exactly.
  • itsmek 5mo ago
    Eh, they were kind of bailed out in that uninsured deposits were made whole. Not saying they shouldn't have done it (fighting contagion is like fighting fire, earlier is prob better and potentially cheaper in the end if your confidence bluff succeeds) but "bail out" is a flexible enough term that electing to cover uninsured deposits at the expense of uninvolved parties feels like it qualifies to me. Plus it has some of the same smells as other bailouts - weighing moral hazard vs systemic risk.
    • matwood 5mo ago
      “They” in your sentence is not SVB. Depositors who put money in an accredited bank should not have to worry about bank runs. Risk free banking for depositors is a cornerstone of the US economy. There’s also no moral hazard here - the shareholders, equity partners, and debt holders were correctly wiped out.
      • itsmek 5mo ago
        Risk free banking past FDIC limits is not explicitly a cornerstone of the US economy, it is a thing that is sometimes done and sometimes not done depending on contagion risk. If it's so essential then we should make it explicit so that everyone pays the fair share for their deposit insurance.