[r_hoods_ghost]

But they were by, for smaller but over 250k depositors, not spreading their deposits between multiple banks. Which can be done manually or through a sweeping account very very easily. Or, for larger depositors, having other safety mechanisms in place. Really depositors over 250k do need to take some moral responsibility, even though I think it is better that they be made whole to stave off a 2008 style financial crisis.

[tempestn]

So what is the risk premium they were collecting? The time savings of not managing multiple accounts? Is it really desirable for larger depositors to carry the inefficiency of spreading their deposits across multiple banks, if the net liabilities of the banks end up being the same?

[dtf]

The risk premium was access to a large and very cheap credit facility:

https://twitter.com/jonwu_/status/1634250770555219970

[r_hoods_ghost]

Net doesn't matter to the individual firm. And who should carry it? Everyone else who had the gumption to spend, what, a few man hours, to guarantee that they won't end up not being g able to make pay roll?

[331c8c71]

Doesn't matter. The rules are the rules.

[331c8c71]

There should have been

1) repayment of the insured amounts

2) liquidation of assets

3) repayment of the rest (likely with a haircut).

4) (optionally) a legislative reform (if the current system seems not adequate anymore)

[BlueTemplar]

What does moral rather than fiscal responsibility have to do with this ??