|
|
|
|
|
by btilly
2617 days ago
|
|
Actually they don't quite get shut down. At least not in the USA. Instead they get taken over by a more stable bank, which receives some money to make the transaction make sense. People with deposits in the bank do not lose their money. This is how FDIC insurance actually works in practice. However there is a systemic risk if the entire system cannot absorb the bad banks. According to multiple people involved, in 2008 we came within a few hours of the whole banking system having to be shut down with no idea how much chaos that would cause. This is why TARP got passed. |
|
When your bank is forcibly taken over by the government and the assets forcibly sold to someone else with nothing going to the owners of the bank, most would say the bank was shutdown.
In 2008, since TARP recipients didn’t wipe out their shareholders and sell shares to new owners (perhaps .gov), I would say they had plenty of time left before needing a bailout.
The gov should have created an express bankruptcy protection process instead of bailing out shareholders and boards that took too much risk.