> Insofar as the amatuer hour banks [...] will now be saved from going under [...]

That's the exact opposite of what's happening. Signature has, in fact, gone under.

How is the bank “saved”?

All it’s assets seized, all shareholders removed, all leadership let go.

The banks customers are saved, the bank is dissolved.

The problem arises when you look past one bank and consider the banking system as a whole. When the next bank fails and its depositors are backstopped by the FDIC at 100%, then again and again, eventually the “fund” should run out. In theory.

In practice, of course, that will never be allowed to happen. FDIC insurance is now effectively infinite.

>FDIC insurance is now effectively infinite.

That clearly being the case, what does it mean for insurance premiums?

This is from the top HN post:

> Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

So, going forward, are they planning to do a “special assessment” for every failure? Because before banks were paying premiums into the system, just like an insurance.

Yes, the premiums are called assessments.

Ok, that makes sense.

My question was more about mechanics of this. Do they plan to keep FDIC fund and grow it or maybe you wind it down and just assess “as needed”, since the other guy is now completely on the hook.

No insurance premiums will reflect estimated risk of total bank failures going forward.

You've got this backwards. The FDIC's actions are in part designed to limit its losses, since contagion risk will also be borne by the FDIC. By limiting the chance of runs they are limiting their liabilities.

The FDIC always had unlimited resources since it is backed by the US. It always sought to protect the entire banking system without limits. It's doing its job.

Lets just say the FDIC officially covers all losses at all banks. That means that the real danger, bank runs, are eliminated and so is the FDIC's risk in that regard. The risk is reduced to bank mismanagement which can be managed through examination and seizure of banks. That's essentially how too big to fail banks are handled.

I don't think we're in disagreement -- I support the actions of the FDIC, Treasury, and FRB on this issue. A few hours from now, hopefully we will not see runs on other exposed institutions.

The decision was made that if the Deposit Insurance Fund [1] was drained as a consequence of this new mandate to protect all depositors while collecting insurance premiums calibrated to the previous $250k limit, the government will backstop the FDIC ("full faith and credit"). Good.

My contention is that the future of the DIF itself is murky -- I suspect that it's no longer necessary. If it were still relevant, then shouldn't FDIC dramatically increase insurance premiums going forward? Without getting into too much detail, I find that extremely unlikely because FDIC insurance expenses are already quite high. If FDIC won't increase premiums to the level necessary to fund the DIF properly at the new (unlimited) level of protection, Congress should eliminate the requirement for banks to carry this insurance.

> While the DIF is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, it has two sources of funds: assessments (insurance premiums) on FDIC-insured institutions and interest earned on funds invested in U.S. government obligations. Revenue from assessments and interest on investments add to the DIF balance (or fund net worth), while losses (primarily from bank failures) and operating expenses reduce the balance.

[1] https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/deposit-ins...

> this new mandate to protect all depositors

I don't think that exists. They're walking the line between theory (250K max) and reality (want to preserve everyone's deposits in most cases). For smaller banks they routinely sell the failed institutions whole to achieve the later. For larger banks like SVB they may need to get creative.

So making it official would be a problem (congress is unlikely to approve unlimited coverage) but handling it on a case by case basis works out and avoids moral hazard.

If it didn't exist 16 hours ago when you last responded, after today, I'm pretty sure it exists now. Rough day for private banks.

Depositors are backstopped, but shareholders are hosed.

Isn’t the market pruning bad banks good? I would be more concerned about the consolidation of small banks into larger ones.

It's all the other banks with MBS or bonds which they hold for deposits - that have devalued due to interest rate increases. Big banks > 250 billion are required to buy swaps to protect themselves against interest rate risk. But apparently smaller banks are not? Or the regulators just don't bother to check? Either way - this means a tonne of banks like SVB which don't have enough liquid assets to match their deposits 1-1 would likely have folded over the next week as depositors commenced the mother of all runs. Now they can borrow the shortfall for a year. Thus creditors of these banks have been spared. Thus it's a bailout. Commenters here claiming the contrary are straight up wrong.

Furthermore - folks are saying not to worry about the big banks because they do have interest rate swap protection on their hold-to-maturity assets. Cept - cast your mind back to 2008. Who was providing swap protection back then? And what exactly happened to them? How do you spell AIG?

Central bank providing liquidity is not a bailout. It’s a central bank function.

Again - wrong. This is not a liquidity crisis. It's a solvency crisis. These banks have debts (i.e. deposits) that exceed their assets (the mbs and bonds that are now worth less than their hold to maturity value).

Why is it a solvency crisis? The 10 year bonds, if held to maturity, cover the assets, no? It’s that they can’t offload the bonds in the current environment because there are more attractive bonds of the same duration.

All of these assets and accounts have to look extremely attractive to the largest institutions that can absorb them without increasing the risk to their own books.

A ten year wait till maturity is not a short term funding shortfal... lol

A bailout is when you rescue equity or bond holders. There aren't any specific people being rescued here.

And there aren't any other large banks doing that either. That was a SVB problem.

If a lending facility, only available to banks, at par for assets that are under par is not a bailout…

What would you call it?

It's not allowing the bank to continue to operate under its current owners. Equity holders are likely getting zeroed and debt holders are likely taking a haircut. It's deposit insurance, not a bailout (at least in the sense of how the term is normally used), and where the money is coming from is irrelevant to that.

Those are not the terms of the BTFP. Nowhere does it say that to access this facility you must go under FDIC receivership and wipe out stockholders and bondholders.

It’s not available to banks, only to used-to-be-banks.

False. Check the linked press release in my parent comment - the BTFP is available to all banks and allows them to use their under par assets as collateral for loans at par from the Federal Reserve.

“ Borrower Eligibility: Any U.S. federally insured depository institution (including a bank, savings association, or credit union) or U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank that is eligible for primary credit (see 12 CFR 201.4(a)) is eligible to borrow under the Program. “

Fair. Thought you were talking about making SVB depositors whole.

I’d call the BTFP a mechanism to stabilize the banking system in the US, given rising interest rates. I guess I don’t care as much about the semantics, though.

It wipes out losses accrued up to March 12, 2023 on eligible securities, for one year. It's taxpayer funded. Terms are super generous: only a 10bp premium. It's at least a bailout for one year. It may or may not get extended.

It also works against the Federal Reserves stated policy of shrinking their balance sheet due to inflation.

I do think it's somewhat clever. It basically lets the private banking sector control the pace of QT. If liquidity dries up somewhere in the system it does a one-year targeted QE.

I'd say it's bailout-y to value collateral above market value, but isn't totally free money and we haven't seen all the terms for it. At least the Fed is safer holding long term bonds than anyone else.

> If a lending facility, only available to banks, at par for assets that are under par is not a bailout… > What would you call it?

Obviously I'd call it a loan.

Depositors are just shareholders with higher priority and an apparently unlimited (previously capped at 250k) insurance policy

Unlimited insurance AND still keeping the profits from the juicy interests.

> Planes wouldn't have stopped to exist, cars wouldn't have stopped to exist. > The entities would have disappeared and new ones would get created.

That seems unnecessary considering how many jobs were at stake.

The airlines got bailouts specifically because they had union contracts that wouldn't have survived otherwise. It was for the workers.

Though, planes probably would've ceased to exist eventually, they need continual maintenance.

Isn't bailing out startups who pay employees a similar position?

Only if unemployment in the startup sector was a big problem and they were unionized.

How about, the government simply take an equity position in these companies. That way, when the inevitable unicorns come along, they can make the VC profit. Instead, the government is simply taking a pure loss... for what? Literally, an equity position is a net win. The loss is capped out at the equity position (which they're already losing now), while the gain is unlimited. Sure, there is every interest in protecting workers. But we're also protecting shareholders in these companies, and eliminating their risk, while not taking any of the reward. When these shareholders make money on the startups, they will be first in line to demand low taxes and lauding the 'free' market. How silly

Taking an equity position in a failing company that needs a bailout is obviously dumb. You want equity in the ones that don't need bailouts, i.e. you want a social wealth fund.

We the people don't need equity to make money from companies growing, though; we have income taxes.

Taking an equity position in all the startups that are banking at SVB is not a failing proposition at all. You misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fed is bailing out thousands of companies that have huge upsides. By keeping those companies in business via the fund transfer, the fed is allowing the founders / investors to make a huge upside, while retaining no right to the upside. The fed just eats the loss. I'm saying, in exchange for providing liquidity for employee wages and invention (the supposed social goods we're paying for) the government should take an equity position.

In no way do I think the government should own SVB's assets, which is what is actually happening here, as the government is going to eat the cost of retaining SVB's assets while insuring them at full face value despite that being 15B over market value right now.

> we have income taxes.

Alas the investors and companies being bailed out are not known for being very good at paying those.

The bank isn’t saved, it’s gone. Shareholders wiped out, anybody like executives paid in stock will have lost millions and soon many will be unemployed. A new bank will be found to buy all of the assets.

It is somewhat of a bailout of depositors, but only in so far as the fed is going to print a little money to buy some securities (er, use them as collateral for loans) somewhat above a firesale market rate.

Banks are still going to lose money but are being protected from a panic collapse at no real cost to taxpayers.

Do most banks hedge that risk? I could imagine that being pretty expensive. Who takes the other side of a bet like that?