Ad Blocker Detected
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Push to Insure Big Deposits Percolates on Capitol Hill
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to ravage the economy, many people are struggling to keep their finances afloat. Job losses, salary cuts, and massive bills have left many individuals in dire straits, and there seems to be no respite in sight. These economic uncertainties, coupled with widespread bank failures, have sparked a new discussion on Capitol Hill – the push to insure big deposits.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a US government corporation that provides deposit insurance to customers in case of bank failures. The standard insurance offered by the FDIC is $250,000 per depositor, per institution. While this amount may seem like a substantial sum to most people, it falls short for those with large deposits, especially because they stand to lose a lot in case a bank goes under.
The push to insure big deposits has gained steam in recent years, with several lawmakers and industry leaders calling for an increase in the deposit insurance limit. Their argument is that the current limit is inadequate in protecting customers from catastrophic losses, as evidenced by the Great Recession of 2008 and other bank failures.
Proponents of the push to insure big deposits argue that raising the FDIC insurance limit would not only offer depositors greater protection but also promote consumer confidence and financial stability. By increasing the insurance limit, banks would be encouraged to attract more large deposits, thereby boosting their capital base and improving their creditworthiness. This, in turn, would benefit the entire financial system by reducing the risk of bank failures and improving liquidity.
However, opponents of the push to insure big deposits argue that raising the FDIC insurance limit would create moral hazard and encourage reckless behavior by banks and depositors. They argue that such a move would increase the likelihood of bank failures, as banks would become more willing to take on greater risks. Moreover, they argue that raising the insurance limit would create an unfair advantage for large depositors, who could actively seek out banks with the highest insurance coverage, thereby creating a “flight to quality” that could harm smaller banks.
Despite these concerns, the push to insure big deposits has gained traction in Congress, with lawmakers from both parties sponsoring bills to raise the insurance limit. In 2019, the FDIC put forth a proposal to increase the insurance limit to $250,000 per depositor, per account. However, this proposal was met with a lot of criticism from industry groups and lawmakers, who argued that the increase was not enough to protect large depositors adequately.
The Covid-19 pandemic has further intensified the push to insure big deposits, with several high-profile bank failures and the looming economic crisis making the need for greater financial security more apparent than ever. In March 2020, Senator Chris Van Hollen proposed a bill that would increase the FDIC insurance limit to $500,000 per depositor, per account, and $1 million per depositor, per joint account. This bill has been gaining support from both Democrats and Republicans, with several lawmakers arguing that it is necessary to offer greater protection to depositors in these uncertain times.
The push to insure big deposits is not a new concept, and it has been gaining traction for several years. However, the economic and political climate has made the need for greater financial security more pressing than ever. With several lawmakers backing bills to increase the insurance limit, it is likely that this issue will remain in the public eye for some time to come.
In conclusion, the push to insure big deposits is a contentious issue that has divided lawmakers and industry leaders. While proponents argue that raising the FDIC insurance limit would offer greater protection and promote financial stability, opponents argue that it would create moral hazard and encourage reckless behavior. The Covid-19 pandemic has intensified the need for greater security, and lawmakers are now considering bills to increase the insurance limit. Ultimately, the decision to raise the insurance limit will require careful consideration, balancing the need for greater protection with the potential risks of moral hazard and market distortion.
