That the bureaucracy can't avoid bailing out large connected depositors is precisely why the scope of FDIC coverage should be increased to all bank accounts, with a graduated rate of assessment due to the increased variance caused by large sums. "Just say no" is as impractical here as it is elsewhere.
"Gruenberg also revealed that $13.3 billion of the $18 billion allocated to protect Silicon Valley Bank, or nearly 74% of the funds used to assist the customers, were used to back deposits for a mere 10 accounts. "
74% !?!? to 10 accounts?
holy cow!
such a large proportion of the funds used to protect such a small number of accounts?
some are really more equal then others :(
Well, spring started 10 days ago, time for a good cleanup!
Some animals are more equal than others
I'm not sure why this was necessary. If you bet big and lose, of course you should hold the bag.
The math here seems disingenuous. There were 10 accounts with 13B in uninsured deposits. The FDIC used 18B to back the entire deposits of the bank. That doesn't mean 13B / 18B went to those 10 accounts.
A better way of thinking about it would be something like: SVB had 170B (random estimate) in uninsured deposits. 13B of the uninsured deposits were from 10 accounts. So (13B / 170B) * 18B = 1.3B went to those 10 accounts.