Live data from Hacker News

Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

home.treasury.gov

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#141
post #27

Incredible that this can just be done over a weekend. Is there a good writeup of (what I assume is a mountain-load of work) of how this works, and what happens during this process? Also, will the FDIC just eventually feed SVB's MBSs back into its insurance fund once they mature?

See https://www.npr.org/2009/03/26/102384657/anatomy-of-a-bank-t... for some more info on how efficiently the FDIC works.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#142

Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…

Does this statement reflect any shift in policy?

Haven’t depositors always been first on the list to get paid, even their uninsured deposits? I don’t know if charging a special assessment to member banks is standard operating procedure, but that doesn’t sound like government intervention. It just sounds like reasonable operation of the FDIC.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#143
post #42

Wow, here’s the real news: > Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. Note the uninsured depositors clause in there — FDIC &co seem to have acted unilaterally to extend deposit insurance beyond the 250k and to the full amounts of any deposit account. And they are charging the banks for it. If this doesn’t stop a ru…

This round of bank failures was special because the debt held by these banks lost value because there is better stuff on the market, not because there was anything intrinsically uncollectable about the original debt. In fact, the debt probably is pretty similar to stuff held by everyone else in this ecosystem. This provides flexibility to meet the urgency of the situation, and FDIC, Fed, Treasury are simply saying "we know what the stuff is worth and there is enough money in the pot to make all depositors hole." "No more bank runs at this time please."

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#145

Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…

Well one way to do this would be to regulate banks more, like we used to: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-signs-bank-bill-rollin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation

You’re saying SVB should’ve been designated “too big to fail?”

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#146
post #81
post #68

Yet another new precedent by the Fed and FDIC. All depositors are now guaranteed their funds if a bank fails. This is the definition of Moral Hazard [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

If payment is done by other banks, doesn't that serve as mitigation? Sure, when the government pays, it's super risky. However if other banks pay, for sure they'll either self regulate or push for better legislation.

But it’s not other banks - it’s customers of other banks.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#147

Interesting that they're announcing this for SVB and Signature. I infer from this that they will backstop the depositors at these two banks, and they assume that by doing so no other banks will be 'run' by depositors.

They didn't say as much, but that was my read.

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#148
post #93

Yellen and the FDIC is in a tough spot. This is the important line, "Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law." Thus, on one hand, I'm glad they're doing this, as it should help prevent wider bank runs, and it ensures that banks are the ones that are actually paying for it. At the same time, this is yet another exam…

How do you square this statement of yours: > Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy. with this quote from the Treasury Dept statement? > "No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer."

EXACTLY! This will be born by the taxpayer. What were all the VCs f*cking thinking concentrating all their portfolio companies in one financial institution? This was terrible decision making on their part (and by the portfolio companies). Why does this all of a sudden become a taxpayer liability? Because All-In bros got on Twitter and started spamming people?

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In cases where you can't predict the future appropriately, sometimes it's better to make prudent decisions that help everyone instead of attempting to punish the sinful. Keep in mind that bank shareholders and senior management are going to get wiped out and fired.

"Punishing the sinful" isn't about morals, it's about incentives, and ensuring a level playing field where sinning doesn't improve your long-term competitiveness. Will senior management have to return their 2021 performance bonuses? If not, successful sinning is just a matter of ensuring you cash out early.

Who are you trying to disincentivize? How would it dissuade the bank's management if depositors took a haircut? What behavior do you think punishing depositors would prevent? Do you think depositors should hire an accountant and economist to review their bank's balance sheet every quarter?

Re: Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC

#150
post #135

All bank deposits should be guaranteed by the state. Just like tap water is guaranteed to be drinkable, ... Bank accounts are the basis of many things.

Maybe banks shouldn't be able to place bets with depositor funds.
Post reply on HN