[hn_throwaway_99]

> Bailing out these depositors would send the wrong message and encourage moral hazard, i.e., the belief that someone else will always bear the costs of risky behavior.

Totally agree, and this is what makes me so furious. On one hand, you have all these business leaders demanding fewer regulations because they're "costly", but then when shit hits the fan suddenly everyone, from congresspeople on both sides, to billionaire investors and tech leaders, is crying on Twitter how it's the "end of civilization" if they don't get a bailout.

The whole purpose of things like insurance and regulations is so that you can plan for disasters before they occur. If political pressure can ensure a bailout regardless if depositors are over the FDIC limit, than we should just drop the pretense of there being "uninsured deposits" and demand that depositors pay for insurance, regardless of their deposit amount, up front.

At the very least they need laws in place so they can claw back money from those who took advantage of loose regulations (or prosecute egregious cases). The CEO of SVB sold millions of stock 2 weeks before it collapsed. He better be first in line to return money to make depositors whole if there is a bailout.

So sick of this "heads I win tails you lose" BS.