[mhluongo]

Eh, the FDIC is $250k per account, and total coverage in the fund is pretty small. I'd think we'd stop making blanket statements like this after seeing a couple large bank failures back-to-back in the US. If there are more, we won't be able to make all retail depositors while without significant additional tax revenue or currency debasement.

[PeterisP]

The stats I can find show that 95%+ of Americans have less than $100k of savings, and much of savings is in non-cash means, so $250k per account seems completely sufficient to consider that yes, people are protected.

[mattdesl]

If a bank failure like SVB was not covered ad-hoc and out of policy by FDIC, the economic impact of thousands of companies suddenly going bankrupt and tens of thousands more pulling out of other banks across the country would probably be pretty significant, even though the majority of the country isn’t directly vulnerable to FDIC limits.

[toomuchtodo]

How many people would you presume are vs aren't covered by FDIC in full? In joint accounts, the limit goes to $500k.

Sure, you've got some businesses with poor risk and treasury management who might be carrying a bunch of cash in a demand deposit account that isn't covered, but your vast majority of depositors will be fine.

[nradov]

No, the FDIC can just levy additional fees on the remaining banks. There will be no additional currency debasement.

[xtracto]

This raises some pretty interesting thoughts to the table that I think many people don't see:

Yes, 95% of the US population don't have more than $250,000. Let's say that that 95% has on average something like $5,000 in saving/actives. The problem is not that the FDIC will not "honor" those millions of $5,000 checks. The problem is that most of those "actives" are actually managed by other entities, who "bulk load" the money into bank accounts. Adding those up will make more than $250,000 pretty quickly. So the question still remains: If a bank goes under, and say, a hedge-fund with retirement money is saving a good chunk of its customer funds in said bank under a consolidated account with more than $250,000. Will the FDIC cover the excess to make the hedge-fund whole?

It's like the farce that a lot of those Crypto centralized companies put in their websites: "We are FDIC insured" ... well yeah, their accounts might be FDIC insured, but it is only THEIR first $250,000 that is insured, not the first $250,000 of each of their customers.

[asah]

a quick google search suggests that this is false. Given the FDIC's perfect 100 year track record of covering depositors, the burden of proof is on naysayers.

[TSiege]

The rescue of Silicon Valley Bank implies to me that the $250k is more a suggestion than a rule

[brookst]

$250k is guaranteed. Above that you take your chances on policy.

I don’t think the $250k was ever intended to be an absolute upper limit.

[NovemberWhiskey]

In any case, SVB was primarily a commercial bank, rather than a taker of retail deposits.