If depositors get 100% back (I assume the government pays the difference between selling SBV assets & the deposits)...then what's the purpose of saying "FDIC Insured up to $250k"? It's a moot then isn't it? I don't need to go through the hassle of distributing my money anymore?
Edit: I read the article. Yellen says "“But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”
She says NOTHING about depositors getting 100% back. It could be that they get the share of deposits back faster.
Depositors get deposits back because their deposits are wrapped up in SVB assets. Once those assets are liquidated they get what is theirs. This could end up being less that 100% if the assets end up being sold for less than the total deposits.
The FDIC insures that no matter what you are covered for up to $250k. Let’s say the bank had zero assets then all deposits would get their $250k and likely nothing else since there’s no other assets to sell and distribute. This could have been the case if SVB had larger losses or turned out to be cooking the books or something. But that’s not the case here. They have the depositors money, it just happens to be in illiquid assets that they could’t liquidate fast enough to cover the bank run withdrawals.
The purpose of the $250k per-person-per-bank limit is to encourage large depositors to spread their money among many banks, which reduces risk for both them and the system. However, it's not clear that this limit is really the ideal design.
In the financial crisis 15 years ago, the FDIC in practice guaranteed 100% of deposits. They had to in order to keep people from running all the banks. Since then, we've all been told that banks are safe now because of new regulations. Lots of people have become complacent and haven't felt the need to manage multiple bank accounts to stay within FDIC limits.
SVB's collapse has suddenly let everyone know that, oh, those FDIC limits do actually matter and if you are over them in any of your accounts you had better start moving money. Unfortunately, that's likely to result in runs on lots more small banks as everyone moves their balance in excess of $250k over to JP Morgan (the bank that definitely can't fail).
Sure, it's easy to say now that it's all those people's fault for not managing their risk properly. But not long ago, a $2.5-millionaire opening 10 different bank accounts to stay under FDIC limits would have been called paranoid. And in any case, stupid or not, allowing runs on lots more banks could at some point lead to large-scale collapse of the financial system, which would be bad for much more than just those large depositors.
So it may be in everyone's interests for the FDIC to once again guarantee 100% of deposits. (I say "may", I don't pretend to be enough of an expert to decide this!) And maybe the $250k limit should be rethought going forward, into some other sort of rule that encourages diversification without encouraging contagion when a big bank fails?
(Disclosure: I had an account at SVB, but it was under the FDIC limit. So I don't have any personal need for a "bail out".)
Of course if those banks are depositing to the same 10 banks then you're really protected at 10x...but, well much better than 250k? I'm going to guess it's called a "Sweep Program" but I'm no finance expert. I know of this because it's common for brokerage account to do this - as very often, you'll have more than $250k in cash if you're doing active trading.
You don't need the FDIC, lodge your money directly with the US government.
Let's say you earn your income 28 days before you have to pay out wages (for illustration purposes). You buy a 28 day Treasury bill which matures in time for you to make payroll. Even if they're paid into a bank account you're taking a lot less risk having money sit for a day than continuously. You also earn a little interest.
Yes, the limit seems especially poorly-suited to businesses.
Though, there do exist meta-banks that split funds across multiple other bank accounts in order to achieve higher FDIC limits. Maybe we'll start seeing more of these.
Otherwise, I think the FDIC needs to revise the rules.
I'm no startup CEO but I do trade stocks. I know many brokers, suck as Interactive Brokers will automatically move your money for you to different banks and your FDIC insurance is essentially $2.5 million while lookimg like 1 bank (https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/accounts/sweep-program...)
In addition I use a service called Max My Interest where it will find me the max interest savings account, but also consider risk of bank failure so it's not all in one bank.
Consider time it takes to get your deposit back:
FDIC says depositors will get $250k back on Monday morning (pretty incredible turnaround actually).
For the rest, they will have to wait for assets to be sold.
> For the rest, they will have to wait for assets to be sold.
Actually, that's not completely true; FDIC also says that they'll pay an advance dividend to uninsured depositors next week. That likely won't be the full balance, but they'll get at least part of their deposits back before assets are sold.
The 250k is messaging to minimize moral hazard. You want banks and depositors invested in minimizing their own risk.
I'd guess hesitancy to immediately declare full guarantee of funds is also due to these concerns (although there may be other reasons as well). The sweet spot here maximizes the appearance of consequences while minimizing actual fallout.
The consequences are the reduction of billions in shareholder value, and we shouldn't be dumb about doing anything that reduces confidence in US banks. SVB shareholders will be down from like 60 bln mkt cap during the pandemic to a good fat 0.
> what's the purpose of saying "FDIC Insured up to $250k"
The FDIC guarantees up to $250k, but if additional assets are available beyond that, then those will be paid out to depositors as well. It's a floor, not a ceiling
Yes, the ceiling of the guarantee. If the bank has additional assets to be sold you can still receive more of your deposit back, but the government doesn't guarantee it.
Edit: I read the article. Yellen says "“But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”
She says NOTHING about depositors getting 100% back. It could be that they get the share of deposits back faster.