Live data from Hacker News

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

home.treasury.gov

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

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…

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.

I mostly agree with this, but I feel like the past 25 years or so, ever since "the Greenspan put", has just gone more and more in the direction of telling people that they don't need to worry about doing adequate risk assessments, because if you have powerful people that yell loud enough, and you can cause enough damage, that Washington will come to the rescue. Eventually, I just don't see this ending well.

As someone who is naturally risk averse, I feel like a sucker. I was having a conversation in a separate thread where someone remarked "How can you expect startup companies to spread their deposits across multiple banks?" Besides the fact that there are tons of account structures specifically set up to do that, as an individual, I know what these insurance limits are and have moved assets around accordingly (for me, FDIC limits weren't relevant but SIPC limits were).

How much time I wasted. I should have just gone with a powerful enough institution that I knew would get bailed out if they ever failed. I certainly won't waste my time doing this again, which is probably not the follow-on effect that the feds want.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This probably sealed the deal: > We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. Two closures in three days is a sign that you have to take this very seriously.

This is going to put every regional bank on the map for short sellers as equity holders are being wiped out in these cases without depositors being affected. Why would anyone invest in any regional bank with the risk of a equity wipeout day to day?

people aren't going to pull their money out now that the deposits are essentially guaranteed, that is the point. Business can go on as usual.

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

#183

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…

> Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy.

No offense, but I thought we all learned the principle underlying this in 2008.

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

#184
post #154

This is 100% a bailout and the wording that “no losses […] will be borne by the taxpayer” is a shameful misrepresentation. Just because a bunch of VCs and founders didn’t realize they were at risk of this happening if they kept all their money in one bank, they still bear the responsibility of their losses. Looking forward to this new future where uninsured deposits are actually 100% backed by the FDIC, so actually i…

I am also confused about where the money is coming from to cover SVB’s losses, if not from the taxpayer.

The FDIC can tell banks they need to pay more into it to cover the losses.

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

#185

So they made their decision, everyone can move on. I just hope nobody forgets how prominent VCs behaved during the brief period of uncertainty. The idea of some noble class of investors championing disruption is dead. They're just a bunch of rent seekers like everybody else. For some silly reason I had some respect for the startup industry before this, now I see it as a joke. It's great at a personal level that "foun…

I don't understand this comment. 1) SVB was not managed by VC's. 2) SVB went under because they bought US Treasuries, not because they took risky bets on startups.

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

#186
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…

> Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. how do you interpret this part? what is an example of somebody who would be an unsecured debtholder? as in somebody with a stake in SVB the buisness? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIVB/

Yeah, someone who bought SVB's corporate bonds.

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

#188
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, paying for it by a special assessment on banks means the banks aren't going to get a free ride. They, as a group, have to get their shit together otherwise they will pay dearly

“They” as a group then reduce the interest rates they can pay their depositors because they have extra costs to pay for SVB’s depositors gains.

This. “Backstop” thing is to prevent systemic collapse, but otherwise it will spread the losses to other people who “did nothing wrong”. This is really shaping up as bad lesson here for wrongdoers.

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

#189
post #54

"...Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law..." Is this what passes for a FED press release? Which law? Clear as mud. Did the Fed just established an infinite deposit insurance coverage in the US?

12 U.S.C. 1817(b)(5) (starting on the bottom right of the page numbered 980, page 5 of this PDF [0])

[0]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title12/pdf/...

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

#190
post #53

It was announced as a footnote in this Treasury announcement , which also guarantees 100% deposits for both SVB and Signature Bank above 250k

So we have a bailout. In case you missed it, SVB successfully lobbied Congress to weaken dodds regulations. So in a way, similar to 2008, Main Street pays so the rich will not loose their funds. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/11/silicon-val... https://fortune.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-svb-ceo-g... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11847295/CEO-collap...

This is not a bailout in the historical sense of the word. Equity holders in the bank are getting nothing. They'll be wiped out. Senior leadership has been removed.

All this did was protect _depositors_, the people who put their money in the bank and thought it would be there tomorrow. And it's being done by dipping further into the FDIC fund, which is paid by banks. It will reach down to taxpayers likely through reduced rates or increased fees.

Post reply on HN