The bank’s owners have to pay $x for buying FDIC insurance of up to $250k per account per person. If it actually costs $y > $x to insure for more than $250k, then that is quite a windfall for the bank owners at the expense of federal taxpayers.
SVB is dead. Shareholders are getting zero. The losses are not being socialized. But because we don't want a bank run on every regional bank, let's make depositors whole.
Obviously that insurance costs something, and the moral hazard is that both bank owners and depositors of banks with lax standards get to financially benefit from lower costs due to all federal taxpayers subsidizing their risk.
Anytime taxpayers give money, they are tilting the incentives such that the risk of the loss being bailed out is now going to be underpriced, because it will be assumed a bailout is coming.
If the goal is to have no depositor in the US ever lose any money, then the government should just give everyone an account they can transfer money into and out of. It will earn no interest, and no bank owners will profit from the taxpayers’ subsidy.
> make depositors whole
It seems that the big money people affected by this chose this nonsensical, archaic term to use in place of 'bailout' so that people wont react. It really doesnt work and it looks way, way nonsensical.
But in this particular instance taxpayers should want to invest in trust in US banks and dollars until regulation is corrected.
We do. SVB lobbied successfully to exempt itself from the Fed’s stress tests and Basel III, both of which test assets for interest rate risk and would have caught this problem.