Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not a supporter of bailouts in any sense.

But obviously there's a difference between fixing things so someone receiving what they signed up vs someone not paying what they signed up for



None of the SVB customers signed up (or paid premiums) for unlimited depositor insurance. Nonetheless they will now receive that, paid for by a new assessment (tax) on other banks and their customers.


They expected (with 99.8% confidence) to be able to retrieve their deposits in full.

So the 0.2% scenario is turning out different.


If insurance company had assessed the risk as 0.2% the premium would have been miniscule. But they still didn't pay it, or the risk was not 0.2%?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: