News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by cornholio on Monday March 13, 2023 @08:18AM (#35134672)
> The criteria isn't threatening a "wider disruption to the economy", it's threatening the quality of life of a certain class of people.

In support of this view, they could have easily extended FDIC on a dynamic metric, for example 20k for each employee. If you are 5 employee VC fund sitting on 0.5 billion in cash, no bailout for you from taxpayer money (because let's be real, FDIC is all taxpayer money, it's irrelevant if that tax is collected by the govt directly or indirectly via mandatory banking fees).

An alternative path was to provide zero interest loans against your SVB holdings, with the expectation that you are on the hook for the shortfall that would be yielded by the liquidation. These loans would be guaranteed by stock/assets. If SVB is well capitalized as the Fed claims it is, this shortfall should be relatively small.

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by boole1854 on Monday March 13, 2023 @08:59AM (#35135105)
> In support of this view, they could have easily extended FDIC on a dynamic metric, for example 20k for each employee.

Implementing any such "dynamic metric" would have taken time, which would mean they would not have been able to restore all deposits by Monday, which means a significant risk of contagion.

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by Swenrekcah on Monday March 13, 2023 @09:18AM (#35135298)
Also that would really have been an example of arbitrary changes to the rules on the fly.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by cornholio on Monday March 13, 2023 @09:23AM (#35135362)
They can make make those rules and preparations beforehand, for the next SVB, Signature etc. Banks would definitely want to optin under such a protective regime and have their systems ready since it alleviates customer panic in an event of a liquidity crisis.