I don't read Twitter.

I'm being perfectly simple and honest, here is the a legal definition of 'bailout', which is closest to the context we're all using:

"A bailout is when the government gives financial support to rescue a company that is in financial trouble and possibly at risk for bankruptcy. The bailout enables the survival of the company." [1]

The government is not giving financial support to rescue SVB. SVB's dead. The government is not giving money to depositors. The money comes from the bank's assets. Current estimates are showing that assets will cover over 100% of deposits. Let's say that SVB's assets don't cover 100%. In that case, the government is still not bailing out depositors. The banks themselves will pay through a special assessment. In 2009, that was about 5 basis points of deposits. 5 cents on $100 seems like a pretty good deal, all things considered.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bailout#:~:text=A%20bailout%....

>The banks themselves will pay through a special assessment

And that money comes from the bank's clients, ie basically every taxpayer

Says who?

Says who to which part? The part about where the money is coming from (other banks) is just factual; it's the structure of the rescue action.

If you mean the question of whether that will be passed on to the depositors at those other banks is not based on a factual thing you can point to, but it's just what happens, it's how businesses work; you can't charge them money without expecting some kind of pass-through to their customers.

We are talking about a single assessment of 5 basis points of deposits, which is what was assessed in 2009 after the 2008 crisis. This is unlikely to be a major cost for banks.

I dunno, it seems like a pretty sizable assessment as is. But this also isn't the end of this. There will be an expansion of banking regulations to cover smaller banks, which will incur costs, and they'll have to increase depository insurance premiums a lot to insure all deposits rather than just the first $250k.

> I don't read Twitter.

I included the entire text of something someone wrote, along with a source of where it was written. Twitter has nothing to do with it, besides being the source of the text.

I didn't know about that legal definition, that's interesting! I would argue that it is not "the definition" of a word that is used a lot colloquially outside of legal cases, but I definitely appreciate being made aware that such a definition exists!

In any case, I think that definition clearly applies to all of the other banks that many believe may well have gone under today, were it not for the bailout.