EXACTLY! This will be born by the taxpayer. What were all the VCs f*cking thinking concentrating all their portfolio companies in one financial institution? This was terrible decision making on their part (and by the portfolio companies). Why does this all of a sudden become a taxpayer liability? Because All-In bros got on Twitter and started spamming people?
Where do banks get their revenue and profits from? It’s really immaterial; if depositors weren’t taking a haircut, all of us do in some form or another, it’s simply the optics that change (banks, the Treasury, the Fed, whatever).
No one knows that taxpayers will have to pay anything for any of this. It's possible they'll end up ahead. The assets were/are there to cover depositors. The timing of the asset liquidation/redemption is the problem, and only the "bank of last resort" can help avert contagion from skittish depositors, mass layoffs, and pointless disruption.
As said above: would you prefer to see hundreds or thousands of small companies fail, their employees go on unemployment insurance, etc.?
> No one knows that taxpayers will have to pay anything for any of this. It's possible they'll end up ahead.
Wouldn't SVB have been sold at auction by the FDIC if that were likely to happen?
I don't want to see startups fail or people lose their jobs, but this all feels like a cloaked way of passing the cost of the bailout onto the taxpayers (via raised FDIC fees that will trickle down).
> Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy.
with this quote from the Treasury Dept statement?
> "No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer."