Comment by pearjuice | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pearjuice | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Given the bank's yield is some sort of formula with regards to how much and succesful they are in investing/loaning-out the capital of their depositors. Then how is it not a moral hazard, when the bank gets a signal that the FDIC will cover all this capital, regardless what the bank does with it? Even if the bank asset can go to 0, in the end the vehicle used to prop up this asset will come from the depositors. If I (depositor) give you (bank) 100$ and someone else (FDIC) tells you "do whatever you want with that money, if you lose it I'll give it back to the depositor" - you could basically go to the casino and put it all on red. Even if you would also lose your own 100$ in the process (you risked 200$), you would probably take on more risk simply because my capital isn't at risk but the returns will be yours.

Hyperbole yes, but the moral hazard seems to be with the bank (and the investors therein), not the depositors or their actions. Or I misunderstood you.

I think there's a real misunderstanding here with the distinction between banks, depositors, and what protections apply to each. The scenario (betting on red) is illegal, but assuming it was not, it doesn't matter to the bank whether or not its depositors have their deposits protected.

I can kind of assume what your misunderstanding is, but it's not completely clear. I think you are assuming that if the deposits are protected, the bank gets to keep the deposits and continue running. This isn't how it works, though. As soon as the bank becomes insolvent (loses its bet on red), the bank is shut down and its shareholders are wiped out. The FDIC sets up a new, government run bank to hold and guarantee the deposits, and then tries to find another bank to sell the failed bank's deposits and loans. Right now there is no Silicon Valley Bank. If you had deposits there, they are now held by Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A, which is a new bank operated by the FDIC.

As I said, the scenario outlined is hyperbole... Practically, they won't actually bet on red but use all kinds of financial instruments to achieve the largest amount of yield possible with the depositors capital at their disposal. I'm aware the bank is wiped out and the deposits are no longer managed by SVB. None of this refutes the point that until the bank goes bust, the bank will try to maximize yield and shareholder returns with the cost being their own capital. The depositors capital, is an extra with no cost. As far as I am aware, shareholder profits won't get clawed back. Now that the $250K FDIC barrier has been lifted, the moral hazard is that the bank (not SVB which no longer exists, but any other bank) is no longer responsible for whatever happens with the capital of their customers - even if they would go completely bust; the FDIC will fix it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com