Active Now

Danilo_G
Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Finance » Anyone surprised the gov is going to cover all deposits from the Silicone Valley Bank failure?

Anyone surprised the gov is going to cover all deposits from the Silicone Valley Bank failure?

Over 90% of depositor had accounts over the $250,000 FDIC limit.  
 
But gov to pay them in full to the tune of $250 Billion. 
Can't have Pelosi, Oprah, the former royals etc losing money. 
 
 

Posted - March 13, 2023

Responses


  • 9872
    I'm not surprised that you once again posted something so misleading and so indicative of you failing to do the minimum of fact-checking. I know better than to bother trying to educate you, the information is out there if you had any real interest in anything other than stirring the pot.
      March 13, 2023 12:00 PM MDT
    3

  • 32663
    Are you under the belief that the FDIC will be enforcing their $250k per account insurance limit? They are not...not for SVB nor for Signature Bank. 
     
    FDIC is part of the government.  
     
    Just what do you think is misleading or false?
    This post was edited by my2cents at March 13, 2023 6:53 PM MDT
      March 13, 2023 6:12 PM MDT
    0

  • 5455
    I don’t think this is as important of a news story as three large banks (Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank) failing in four days.  Silicon Valley Bank was the second-biggest bank failure in the US and it was followed by Signature Bank, the third-biggest bank failure in the US, two days later. This post was edited by Livvie at March 14, 2023 12:40 PM MDT
      March 13, 2023 12:35 PM MDT
    3

  • 32663
    Yes multiple banks failing is very concerning. 
      March 13, 2023 6:16 PM MDT
    2

  • 2733
    Here, let me make it simple for you so you don't have to do 2 seconds of research:

    "An independent federal agency, the FDIC doesn't use taxpayer money to insure deposits, but rather is funded through premiums paid by member banks and savings associations."

    There.
      March 13, 2023 12:44 PM MDT
    3

  • 9872
    I wonder where she came up the idea that this was done to save Pelosi, Oprah and the royals. 
      March 13, 2023 3:00 PM MDT
    3

  • 2733
    From the same orifice all the other info is from.
      March 13, 2023 4:30 PM MDT
    2

  • 32663
    No one said the FDIC was created recently. 
     
    I am saying the FDIC is ignoring their limit of coverage ($250k per account) for this bank failure. Yes among the depositors  who will recieve more than the limit are Oprah, the Pelosi's and the former Royals among other high profile accounts.   
      March 13, 2023 5:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 9872
    To answer your original question, no, I am not surprised. Whether or not the FDIC should protect higher value accounts is a legitimate topic for debate. But you seemed to imply that the reason behind it is to protect rich people without considering that most of their depositors were tech startup companies with payrolls to meet and suppliers to pay. I don't know whether those people you say are depositors are or aren't, nor do I think it matters. I simply said I don't think it's the reason behind the bailout. 


      March 13, 2023 7:32 PM MDT
    2

  • 32663
    Over 90% of the depositors have more than the $250k limit.  
    They are reported as being among the depositors. As soon as I heard the names, I said they would cover all their money regardless of the Congressional regulations.  
    I am not surprised either, so we agree but not for the same reasons. 
      March 14, 2023 8:11 AM MDT
    0

  • 9872
    Not being surprised that the government took steps to prevent a banking crisis does not mean I agree with you on any level. To continue this discussion is an exercise in futility since you are only interested in reinforcing your views not in understanding the topic. 
      March 14, 2023 9:32 AM MDT
    2

  • 2733
    The FDIC covers $250,000 per depositor.  If Oprah, the Pelosis and/or the royals have joint accounts,  EACH depositor named in that account is insured up to $250,000.  So, if Nancy and Paul Pelosi have a joint account, they are covered for up to $500,000.  


      March 14, 2023 12:36 PM MDT
    1

  • 32663
    Correct a joint account would be covered $250k for each. I did not dispute that.
    The news has reported that over 90% of their accounts were over the limit. I am assuming that the reports know that it is $250k per account owner per each account type.   
    I am simply saying they should enforce the rules as they are written. No special deals because these are high profile people. 
      March 15, 2023 6:02 AM MDT
    0

  • 2733
    Do you have any proof - I mean REAL proof, not just what Trump tells you - that these folks are getting special treatment because of who they are?
      March 15, 2023 6:21 AM MDT
    1

  • 32663
    I do not need Trump to tell me anything.   I fact I do not know if he has said anything to the effect. 

    I know the rules for FDIC insurance are $250k per depositors per ownership type.  And I know they have announced they are waiving those rules.  I know who some of the depositors are.   
    Well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it is a duck.
      March 18, 2023 6:29 AM MDT
    0

  • 2733
    And the depositors to whom you refer are no different than any other depositors - celebrities, politicians or Joe Shmoe.  
      March 18, 2023 7:46 AM MDT
    1

  • 32663
    No they are not....because they are getting a special waiver from FDIC removing the insurance limits.   
     
    They would not do that for you or me if we were in some small Community Bank. And that is the problem. There should not be two sets up rules. 
      March 18, 2023 8:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 13257
    It’s easy to complain. What can or would you do about it?
      March 18, 2023 9:22 PM MDT
    0

  • 32663
    I have no power to do anything directly about it.  
    What would I do?  I would enforce the rule/law as written. We should not have two sets of rules/laws. 
      March 19, 2023 8:13 AM MDT
    0

  • 2733
    Got anything to back up your statement that FDIC cap limits are only for these folks?
      March 19, 2023 7:20 AM MDT
    0

  • 32663
    It is only for these two banks. SVB and Signature Bank.  

    That is what Yellen testified to in Congress that she and other Treasury members,  the FDIC, and the Fed Reserve voted to cover these two bank's depositors fully 100%.  
      March 19, 2023 8:17 AM MDT
    0

  • 2733
    So, it is the two banks' depositors, some of whom may be Oprah, Pelosi, etc., who are going to be made whole above the $250,000 limit not that Oprah, Pelosi, et al are the only ones in those two banks who will get the waiver.  That means every other person who deposited more than $250,000 will be given the waiver, so why are you singling Them out?  Why aren't you just as irritated that 90% of the depositors in those two banks will get waivers?
      March 19, 2023 2:32 PM MDT
    0

  • 32663
    Why am I singling them out....because they are people who people know who were reported as being among the depositors. Who will be getting the ol' rules for thee but not for me treatment. 
     
    Yes...I want the rules enforced for all just as they are written for all depositors. I never said anything to the contrary.   
     
    We should not have two set of rules. 
     
     
     
     
     
      March 19, 2023 3:48 PM MDT
    0

  • 2733
    So far, you just keep saying that they are getting special treatment, but you haven't posted anything that indicates that they are being treated any differently than any other depositor at those banks. This post was edited by Spunky at March 20, 2023 6:57 AM MDT
      March 20, 2023 6:54 AM MDT
    0