From [1]

> No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer... Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

1: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337

It is inescapable that tax payers will bear the cost of the insurance, if not directly through taxes than indirectly through increased banking fees and reduced rates.

Does the counter-factual world you’re comparing to have any copy-cat bank runs in it? Seems like those might drive fees up and rates down.

So "consumers" are always said to "pay" as companies "pass through" increased costs due to goods, regulations, etc., but that doesn't apply here to all the taxpayers who use banking and are subject to increased FDIC insurance costs? And taking underwater, low-interest debt on the books at face value costs taxpayers overtime through inflation even if we get "paid back with interest". Why don't private buyers want this debt? Because they'd rather have dollars to buy better paying debt which the taxpayers currently provide. The BTFP will rapidly grow over $25B and be used to recapitalize the banks at taxpayers expense.[1]. Someones got to pay for the unrealized losses if depositors won't take a haircut. [2]

So personally, I fundamentally disagree with the statement "no losses borne by the taxpayer," believe this is used to obfuscate the issue, and am sad to see our treasury play this game. But it is standard fare these days, especially when people think they are protecting us from a banking run and the next great depression. But my concern is these measures lead to more economic inequality, populism, and eventual political turmoil.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone... [2] https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/ins...

> So "consumers" are always said to "pay" as companies "pass through" increased costs due to goods, regulations, etc.

It isn’t always said, because it isn’t always true. If the business you’re looking at has profits, then it has pricing power, and the conditions for 100% pass-through don’t exist.

While SVB is probably slightly underwater on deposits, it’s unclear how much of $3B the FDIC will cover. Likely less than $300M.