Yellen says government will help SVB depositors but rules out bailout

Post by nopinsight » Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:16 PM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #170

manuelabeledo wrote: post #132

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…

can’t people buy private insurance for their deposits above the $250k threshold? if you buy an expensive house or car you generally pay a lot more to insure that asset. not sure why people don’t think of buying insurance on their bank deposits in the same way if you find yourself in a situation where you need to hold much more than $250k in one account for whatever reason. But even if you’re an individual holding mil…

Post by hirako2000 » Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:16 PM UTC

harles wrote: post #252

fullshark wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is because there are countless scenarios in the US economic system, where people/businesses fail cause of no fault of their own, but they are told tough luck that's the free market at work cause these people are simply unconnected or their failure is deemed unimportant. It's why the finanical bailouts left a bitter taste for anyone paying attention, and why gov't action here is immediately scoffed at.

I don’t understand this debate. The article says nothing about whether or not depositors will be bailed out.

Post by hanoz » Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:16 PM UTC

stanleydrew wrote: post #247

hanoz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bailing out the owners is obviously completely out of the question, but why bail out the depositors beyond the guarantees they knew they were getting at the time? Funny how language is being used to frame all this. For depositors it's made whole , not bailed out , when of course it's no less a bail out.

It's a matter of differing expectations. When you purchase stock in a bank, there is a reasonable expectation that your investment could lose value. When you deposit money with a bank (in the United States in 2023), you basically never consider the possibility that you might not get it all back. You can certainly argue that the expectation isn't fair, but I'm pretty confident it's nearly universal.

Post by auntienomen » Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #281

fullshark wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is because there are countless scenarios in the US economic system, where people/businesses fail cause of no fault of their own, but they are told tough luck that's the free market at work cause these people are simply unconnected or their failure is deemed unimportant. It's why the finanical bailouts left a bitter taste for anyone paying attention, and why gov't action here is immediately scoffed at.

Except this is the opposite of what happened in 2008 with bailing out the banks. Then, the banks got public money to remain solvent. Here, the bank is taking the hit and the government is ensuring the depositors get their funds back. In 08 people were kicked out of their homes and banks were propped up with public funds. Here, the depositors are being made whole and the bank is going out of business. The salt is your…

Post by idopmstuff » Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

manuelabeledo wrote: post #132

I see a lot of unexpected saltiness and clear misconceptions in any thread about SVB. “Depositors shouldn’t get anything beyond the insured $250,000”. Then what do we do with the billions in remaining assets? Appropriate them, and leave small and mid businesses hanged to dry? “This is a bailout”. It would be if shareholders were to get their money back, which doesn’t seem likely. The government will use the bank asse…