This definitely feels like a case of Robinhood ignoring some advice.
This definitely feels like a case of Robinhood ignoring some advice.
However, Fidelity's trick is to sweep all cash into third-party FDIC-insured bank accounts behind the scenes. This yields several benefits:
1) Practically speaking, it offers the exact same FDIC insurance as a real bank account, because your money is being held in a real bank account.
2) Since cash is deposited into FDIC-insured accounts behind the scenes, Fidelity can seamlessly split money up so that each sub-account holds no more than $250k (the limit of FDIC coverage). This is how they can offer $1.25M of FDIC insurance (split between 5 accounts).
The customer never deals with this complexity, as it's completely abstracted away, behind the scenes. The result is a cash management account that offers $1.25M FDIC insurance on cash balances.
On any given night your dollars are spread out at banks all over the country. Likely at tiny little community banks that you've never even heard of. It's pretty impressive how banks manage to maximize FDIC insurance.
For example, if RBC "failed" in Canada, woulnd't the payout largely come from the Bank of Canada printing more money and all this could essentially happen without CIDC existing? You might get your money back, but now a loaf of bread costs $1000.
Again, maybe I don't understand how it works. Maybe it makes more sense in the US where there are many smaller banks.
Insight?
As for where the funding comes from...the FDIC requires payment into the insurance pool by member institutions, so it's not the government bailing out the depositors each time a bank fails. But if the FDIC pot of money is exhausted, the U.S. Government will still guarantee it by act of Congress. I'm not sure how this works in Canada, however.
Just like auto insurance, everyone pays premiums to the FDIC which pools the money and claims are paid for using that pool.
If the FDIC fund ran out of money the insurance would have to be backed by... the US Treasury, basically? The government would have to open up a money spigot somewhere: either borrow it or print it. It looks like the FDIC has a $100 billion line of credit with the Treasury, so it could use that, but that is just moving money around inside the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_U...
The FDIC apparently has a $67 billion "Deposit Insurance Fund" that holds money that it pays out the insurance from; that fund is raised from insurance premiums paid by banks. During and after the 2008 crisis the DIF got squeezed pretty hard and so they used a power to require prepayment of premiums (from healthier banks).
Like any other form of government spending, that is not directly covered by "printing money"; that can't be done by the federal government. Instead, the money would come from a mixture of spending cuts, additional taxes, and additional borrowing. (Given current US politics, most of the money would probably come from borrowing.)
Now as part of an independent process, the central bank conducts open market operations where it sells and purchases US debt to try and keep inflation and interest rates within targets. When it purchases debt, money is effectively created, and if the US was forced to borrow a large amount of money to cover an FDIC shortfall some of that debt would no doubt end up purchased at least temporarily by the central bank, so:
> woulnd't the payout largely come from the Bank of Canada printing more money [...] You might get your money back, but now a loaf of bread costs $1000.
In the US, some portion of the funds would indirectly come from the central bank printing more money, but only to the extent that it would not cause that sort of spike in inflation.
(Also note that even when a pretty big bank goes under, they still have a lot of assets, and the actual cost to the insurance program once everything has been liquidated is generally very small if not zero. Even if extreme cases such as Iceland when Landsbanki went under, the desposit insurance guarantees were eventually covered by assets recovered in liquidation.)
So basically: 1) Deposit insurance is very important to prevent bank runs (ie, people panicing and causing bank failures even when the bank is actually solvent and 2) It's not that expensive, and doesn't represent the sort of risk or potential costs you can imagine. There aren't a lot of policies which are basically all upside, but deposit insurance comes close.
Moreover, it's “frontstopped” by the government facilitating takeovers of failing banks by healthy banks that will cover deposits.
> In the US, some portion of the funds would indirectly come from the central bank printing more money, but only to the extent that it would not cause that sort of spike in inflation
That's true to the extent that large bank failures are likely to be correlated with (and may contribute to) the broader economic conditions which would promote easier money policies at the Fed, but a major point of independent central banking is creating separation between government fiscal needs (like paying off deposit insurance claims) and monetary policy.
There's no hand waving going on.