Yes that's correct. I'm suggesting an additional fee that is paid by the account holder who holds excess funds above the amounts that are already covered by the bank in their fees for FDIC insurance coverage. I'm aware of the existing bank-paid insurance that covers the mandatory $250k FDIC coverage up to the cap. The difference that I am suggesting is that the umbrella insurance is paid by the account holder to the bank for excess insurance coverage. This allows insurance coverage for account holders over $250k, of which there is no insurance coverage, optional or of any kind, available today.
I think we've just discovered that account holders over $250k _are_ (or can be) covered regardless?
Surely the logical counterparty for the insurance is not the bank, but the third party insurer? i.e. that people should explicitly have to pay for FDIC coverage themselves?
> of which there is no insurance coverage, optional or of any kind, available today.
This is basically a credit default swap for bank accounts, and if you wanted to insure the reported $450m that Roku allegedly had with SVB, someone would have sold you a product I'm sure.
I think this is a case of insurance coverage. The fact that there's some implicit coverage of excess amounts is not sustainable long-term. Just like we buy insurance in the unlikely event that our house is flooded or damaged by an earthquake, so too should companies with significant assets in banks purchase, on their own, insurance to cover the potential possible, but unlikely, situation of a bank bust causing them to lose most of their bank account funds. In this way the government can focus on insuring the general public, and those "too big to fail" can get private insurance to cover their own risks. This is just my opinion and a possibility. Certainly if governments want to come to the rescue or we have a "survival of the fittest" with the loudest, angriest parties getting their way, then we can run things that way as well.
reply