Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A charitable response I think is that depositors did not choose to make risky bets, the bank did. It's a shame really. So, you're blaming the wrong party.

Somehow, the bank definitely needs to be punished, but I'm not sure how or if that can happen in this current system.



What greater penalty for a bank or any other corporation is there than what has already happened to SVB? The shareholders are wiped out. The only thing left would be pursuing individual executives for… something, but aside from possible insider trading it’s not clear what.


Damn bank executives buying risky treasury bonds! Arrest them! /s


poor me I'm just a lil smol bean executive who didn't understand why the other banks didn't take the same risks and I didn't want to ask either.


Other banks did take similar risks. Why do you think the fed setup a facility large enough to serve the entire country to prop them up?

The only risk is trying operate in a broken banking system.



Case in point: First Republic Bank needed a $70B loan this morning to not go the way of SVB.


> depositors did not choose to make risky bets, the bank did

Umm, any and every bank deposit in excess of the deposit insurance limit has a risk associated with it.


And the US government should do whatever they have to do to make that risk zero. I have enough problems to worry about without having to assume that even my bank balance can disappear at any moment. I certainly can't read through thousands of pages of SEC filings from whichever bank I use to assess risk, and even if I had done that I wouldn't have seen government bonds and thought it was a red flag.

If that means we get less interest on savings accounts then so be it.


> the US government should do whatever they have to do to make that risk zero

Errm ... there are an awful lot of people who will never, ever, in their entire lives, have anywhere close to $250,000 on deposit at one bank.

Q: Why should all those people backstop your investment?

Given that, is it perhaps possible that you should take responsibility for your investments which exceeed $250k?


Those people are probably not a significant portion of the tax revenue, so that argument cuts both ways.

I had zero dollars in SVB, and I would probably be less affected than the average person if there was a full on banking collapse.

I'm still not stupid or capricious enough to oppose this 'bailout' though.


We could learn the lesson of 2008 again, but this time actually regulate banks instead of just saying we should regulate banks more.


Hush. Now is not the time. Our thoughts should not be distracted by politics but be with the victims of this horrible event.

(/s)


Depositors aren't forced to bank with a specific institution. Just like shareholders aren't forced to hold specific shares.

Depositors can pick the banks whose risk profile they prefer.


I might be missing something, but not sure why this was downvoted.

Deposits <$250k are FDIC insured. One could say those accounts didn't evaluate the institution that held their funds and didn't really need to. But were they aware of FDIC limits? IMHO, they should have been and likely were.

Depositors >$250k are well aware of FDIC and the risk associated with money in their bank. They really should think about the banks they work with and understand their risk profiles.

Subjective, but I understood how FDIC worked when I opened my first bank account that was no where close to 250k. If it was greater, I would optimize my holdings across different institutions and instruments.


Yes. Though as a normative statement, I would prefer if they would abolish FDIC.

That way small time depositors are also drawn into the ranks of the watchmen of the financial system.


In a more perfect world, I totally agree. But with American average savings so low and with the average level of financial literacy so low, expecting half of America to join the ranks of financial system watchmen is, IMHO, a tough hill to climb.

[study on financial literacy from 2022](https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/TIAA-Institute-...)


People now ain't stupider than in the past. And banking systems around the world (apart from the US, probably) did just fine without government backed deposit insurance. Eg in Canada or Scotland during their free banking eras.


Yes, but depositors are generally not expected to be sophisticated investors in the context of bank liquidity abd solvency. You don't get a prospectus of the bank itself when you consider opening an account.


But someone that has over 250K in a bank can be expected to understand that FDIC insurance is (or better was, effective now it is unlimited) 250K, right?


First, no. My wife earns more than me, but phrases like "FDIC insurance" make her eyes glaze. She'd ask her parents, "What do you do?" They'd answer, "Keep cash under your mattress."

Second, what does that really mean? How to evaluate the quality of your bank isn't typically discussed by personal finance teachers, beyond looking at the interest rates and fees.


The prospectus is easily available, for all the good it would do.

In any case, you don't need to be a sophisticated investor as a depositor. Ordinary market participants manage 'flights to quality' just fine, even if they are not sophisticated investors. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight-to-quality

If you want to have a stable financial system, you shouldn't suppress the incentives for people, including depositors, to look for safety. Just the opposite, you should have them sensitive so that they make moves (on the margin) long before danger is serious. Have people move their deposits _before_ it's too late.


"KYB" now means "Know Your Bank". :-D

More seriously, you don't need to do extra due diligence. Just buy insurance for your funds above $250K. Or use standard treasury methods like using institutional insured liquid deposits or sweep accounts.


Liability insurance is required for automobile drivers, because of the externalities. Perhaps bank run insurance should be required for depositors, because of the externalities. That'd force depositors to internalize the externality of banking with a fragile bank.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: