News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC. Parent comment

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by RandomLensman on Monday March 13, 2023 @06:33AM (#35133726)
If you need money now and not in the future, there is cost. The fact that the principal gets paid at maturity is irrelevant - a risky bond does have interest rate sensitivity, too.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by xmcqdpt2 on Monday March 13, 2023 @06:50AM (#35133878)
Of course, that's why SVB failed. But the FDIC doesn't need the money now (well assuming they successfully stop the dominos from falling).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by RandomLensman on Monday March 13, 2023 @07:00AM (#35133967)
I would have thought that the deposits will leave SVB/what is left of SVB pretty soon, so the FDIC will need to cover that rather now than in the far future.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by ElevenLathe on Monday March 13, 2023 @09:41AM (#35135593)
The point of doing this is that the deposits hopefully won't feel the need to leave. After all, the BoA account you were planning to move them to doesn't have a public letter from the Treasury Secretary saying it's insured to no limit by the FDIC.
[ Parent | on HN ]