Hacker News Reader

It's exceedingly unlikely to be anything less than 99. The FDIC wants to reassure everyone so there aren't more runs. Do you really think they're going to let the eventual purchaser not make everyone whole?

View on HN

That's a bold statement and not in line with FDIC actions for previous bank failures.

Is it not? Most of the time the FDIC will find a buyer and guarantee some percentage (usually ~80%) of all losses to the purchasing bank (plus the very low upfront purchase price, of course) in exchange for them honoring all deposits. So ensuring most deposited funds are safe, at least in the long term, seems to be in line with their usual playbook, even if the unusual circumstances around this particular failure might make that less likely.

> in 55 failures since IndyMac of banks with total deposits over $1 billion, uninsured deposits were fully protected against any loss. The largest failure, Colonial Bank, had $20 billion of deposits, including an estimated $4.4 billion of uninsured deposits.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/fdic-invents-costly-solution...

Meanwhile, svb had north of 160bik deposits with an estimated 93% uninsured.

Scope is a bit different.

The article goes on to note that when FDIC wound up Wachovia in 2008 there were $130Bil in uninsured deposits and all of them were made whole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com