Yes. The FDIC remains the best protection for your $250k or less.

As noted above, they have over $120 billion in reserve for guaranteeing any <$250k deposits that a failed bank can't cover with their remaining assets.

So even if the banks holding your high yield savings accounts were to fail, and if for whatever reason the banks' remaining assets can't cover 100% of your insured deposits (unlikely, since they'll be making all their <$250k deposits whole with their assets before any of their >$250k deposits), the FDIC would use a little bit of that $120B to make sure you get all your money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...12EFE0430100007FABC5

snips:

To cover uninsured deposits, federal officials first had to determine that the banks’ collapse posed a “systemic risk” to the financial system — something that could topple not just one or two banks but the industry more broadly.

This could prove one of the most debated questions about the federal intervention. Some outside experts had been seriously skeptical that SVB’s collapse posed a systemic risk. A few observers even wondered if SVB depositors and investors in companies that banked there — who had a financial interest in having all deposits safeguarded — overhyped the broader economic risk precisely to secure federal aid.

Yet the nation’s top banking regulators determined that a systemic risk did exist, though they have not yet released an analysis demonstrating their findings. Approval of the measures required a two-thirds vote of the boards of the Fed and FDIC. Both the Fed and FDIC did so unanimously.

https://www.latimes.com/opinio...serve-interest-rates

In some ways, SVB was unusual. Around 97% of its deposits (by value) were uninsured. This is because the bank catered primarily to the tech community, with many of these companies and nonprofits (perhaps up to 37,000 of them) parking their operating cash there.

a significant factor was how SVB was affected by the Federal Reserve and its macroeconomic priority to bring down inflation. Somehow this message did not filter down to corporate leaders at the bank.

SVB was brought down because it and its Fed supervisors did not pay attention to what Fed chair Powell said would happen — that the Fed would raise interest rates if inflation stayed stubbornly high, as it has. Instead, SVB’s assumption that interest rates would remain low appeared to drive its investment strategies.

when startups received a flood of funding during the pandemic and immediately after, deposits at SVB rose by about $100 billion, more than doubling its balance sheet. SVB leadership used these funds to buy long-term U.S. government-backed bonds that are free of credit risk (they never default).

Unfortunately, as the bank’s management and its Fed supervisors should have known, such assets are not free of interest rate risk — meaning that as the Fed raised interest rates over the past nine months, the market value of SVB’s portfolio declined. Eventually, the value of its assets fell so much that there began to be concern about solvency, and SVB was unable to find enough cash to match the attempted $42-billion withdrawal on Thursday.

The bank’s miscalculation of risks, based on over-optimism of future interest rates, was a central problem, creating a vulnerability that helped trigger the bank run

Total bank deposits in the U.S. are around $18 trillion, of which about $10 trillion are FDIC insured

and if it’s questionable the SVB posed a “systemic risk” to the nation’s banking system, it’s definite that Signature Bank, heavy into crypto currency did not, but they received the same intervention. That’s why I posted that the Fed and FDIC have made a de facto decision that every bank poses a systemic risk should it fail.

quote:

U.S. Regional Bank Stocks Now:

1. Western Alliance, $WAL: -75%

2. First Republic, $FRC: -65%

3. Zions Bancorp, $ZION: -43%

4. PacWest, $PACW: -41%

5. Comerica, $CMA: -33%

6. Fifth Third, $FITB: -20%

Markets are betting that SVB's collapse broke the regional bank system.

[b]Source: The Kobeissi Letter

If the Regional Banks take it in the neck, Great Recession 2.0 will be upon us.

Is the Federal Government (FDIC) now effectively backing 100% of depositors accounts, up from $250k e.g., SVB? Or, is this a one off?

Hummm, isn't Barney Frank (Dodd-Frank Act fame) a board member of the Signature Bank?

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:

Hummm, isn't Barney Frank (Dodd-Frank Act fame) a board member of the Signature Bank?

Yes he is.

quote:

Total bank deposits in the U.S. are around $18 trillion, of which about $10 trillion are FDIC insured

So, it is becoming increasingly evident that the whole banking system, right up to, and including the Fed and FDIC are nothing more than a massive shell game, constantly moving money around to give he appearance that there is some substance there rather than just empty promises to pay. $120 billion sounds like a bunch of money until you consider it as security for a $10 trillion risk. When everything rests on confidence, without any true substance to whore it up, any slight deviation to business as usual can be considered a "systemic risk." Teetering on the precipice, a gust of wind, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Fed and FDIC board members must be shaking in their boots at the predicament that irresponsible fiscal policies by decades of mismanagement by both major political parties have placed them in.

The root cause is, of course, over-spending. When has it ever been wise to spend more than you can possibly acquire? I, for one, will be amazed if we as a country can work our way out of financial ruination. We are in it up to our necks, and the water is rising faster than ever.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
$120 billion sounds like a bunch of money until you consider it as security for a $10 trillion risk.

Yet again, that $120B is a supplement ("Plan B") to cover whatever qualified deposits turn out not to be covered by a failed bank's remaining assets ("Plan A").

Which very likely would require $0 from the FDIC. For example, SVB was seized when its assets had dropped a mere 2% below its ability to cover all of its deposits, and well before it had dropped below its ability to cover 100% of its sub-$250k insured deposits. Even before the FDIC pledged to pitch in beyond its normal obligations, every single one of SVB's sub-$250k account holders was going to get every last cent of their money back, with no additional FDIC funding required to accomplish that.

So no, that $120B isn't intended to cover all $10 Trillion in deposits. A failed banks' assets will cover all or nearly all of its insured sub-$250k deposits.

Besides, even the massive banking collapse during the Great Depression saw only ~30% of US banks collapse. Not 100%. And most of those were tiny single-branch local banks, as was the norm nearly 100 years ago.

So realistically, we're talking a small fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all insured deposits that might need supplemental coverage by any money whatsoever from that FDIC deposit insurance fund.


I get it. You're worried. But take a breath. Shut off the cable news. Disconnect from the doom and gloom. Go do something that makes you happy.

SVB failed 14 days after KPMG gave it a clean bill of health and Signature Bank went down 11 days after KPMG finished and signed off on its audit. Interesting. So, if the Banks Auditors are unable or unwilling to find 'Systemic Risk' and the FDIC and FED are reactive to potential bank runs with risk protection on a slide rule and not $250k, then who has your back? The FED, FDIC, the Banks or you? It's on you unless you were a depositor at SVB and then you're ok..

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
U.S. Regional Bank Stocks Now:
1. Western Alliance, $WAL: -75%
2. First Republic, $FRC: -65%
3. Zions Bancorp, $ZION: -43%
4. PacWest, $PACW: -41%
5. Comerica, $CMA: -33%
6. Fifth Third, $FITB: -20%
Markets are betting that SVB's collapse broke the regional bank system.

That was from 8:45 this morning.

Much like Charles Schwab on the previous page, while it was still a painful day, many of those rebounded quite a bit from those huge early lows by the end of the day:

WAL: -44%
FRC: -58%
ZION: -22%
PACW: -13%
CMA: -27%
FITB: -13%

I bought some ALLY today. I hope I don't regret it.

Picked up about 88 oz silver early this month. I never regret that.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I bought some ALLY today. I hope I don't regret it.

Whew, well they do pay over 4% in yield on the stock and you can get a 30 Day Brokered CD from them (on Fidelity) that pays 4.3% but I'm too much of a wienie to invest in either their stock or CD at the moment.

I'm a income/growth stock buy and hold kinda guy and look at the company's history. I'll keep an eye on it.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
Picked up about 88 oz silver early this month. I never regret that.

Until it drops 17% like it did over the past year.

Or 25% like it has over the past 10 years.

And that's not even factoring in inflation.

I invested in metals. You know brass, copper, iron, lead, steel, tungsten, and zinc.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
I get it. You're worried. But take a breath. Shut off the cable news. Disconnect from the doom and gloom. Go do something that makes you happy.

I always enjoy refreshing comments like this in these posts.

Paul Sperry: Fed Reserve Bank of SF that missed massive red flags @ SV Bank run by openly gay diversity quota & Janet Yellen protege Mary Daly who focused more on "climate change and inequities" than regulating rogue banks like SVB. Also chairs SF Fed Diversity & Inclusion Council

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
Picked up about 88 oz silver early this month. I never regret that.

Until it drops 17% like it did over the past year.

Or 25% like it has over the past 10 years.

And that's not even factoring in inflation.

I just try to catch the bottom tick when I can. And variety always changes. Not buying ASEs tho.

Yeah, the premium on silver eagles is absolutely ridiculous these days.