The post The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images) Getty Images More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly. To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts. Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills. By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds. It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind. Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of… The post The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images) Getty Images More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly. To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts. Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills. By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds. It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind. Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of…

The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance

2025/12/03 06:38

WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images)

Getty Images

More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly.

To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts.

Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills.

By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds.

It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind.

Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of billions more into the FDIC’s insurance fund.

It means banks will suffer twice: first through higher insurance costs, and second through a reduction in profitable lending. From this, readers can hopefully deduce that a needless cost imposed on banks would be paid for via reduced economic activity thanks to lending shrunken by federally mandated increases in insurance costs.

Returning to bank depositors, to presume that they won’t pay for increased deposit insurance is truly naïve. That’s because increased FDIC insurance on non-interest-bearing accounts will logically raise the costs for banks to host those accounts in the first place. Translated, fees associated with non-interest-bearing accounts will almost certainly increase to reflect the cost of insurance for accounts that, by virtue of them not paying interest, don’t require much insurance to begin with. The average household checking balance is $5,300.

Which brings us back to the legislation itself. To say it’s a solution in search of a problem insults understatement. Only it’s much worse. Since increased deposit insurance will raise costs for banks and bank customers alike, it will bring harm to both while sapping economic vitality by reducing the availability of money for an economy reliant on it.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2025/12/02/the-dangerous-contradiction-within-higher-federal-deposit-insurance/

Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

Bitcoin ETFs Record Strongest Inflows Since July, Push Holdings to New High

Bitcoin ETFs Record Strongest Inflows Since July, Push Holdings to New High

The post Bitcoin ETFs Record Strongest Inflows Since July, Push Holdings to New High appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief Bitcoin ETPs saw a net inflow of 20,685 BTC last week, driven mostly by U.S. ETFs. The recent uptick in investor risk appetite is driven by rate cut expectations and new crypto IPOs. Despite institutional demand outpacing new Bitcoin supply, realized and implied volatility remain historically low. Bitcoin exchange-traded products globally logged net inflows of 20,685 BTC last week, the strongest weekly intake since July 22, according to digital assets firm K33 Research. The renewed momentum lifted U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs’ combined holdings to 1.32 million BTC, surpassing the previous peak set on July 30. U.S. Bitcoin ETF products contributed nearly 97% of last week’s 20,685 BTC ETP inflows, highlighting the surge in demand ahead of the FOMC meeting.  Bitcoin ETF inflows “tend to be one of the key determinants of Bitcoin’s performance,” André Dragosch, head of research for Europe at Bitwise Investments, told Decrypt, adding that the “percentage share of Bitcoin’s performance explained by changes in ETP flows” has reached a new all-time high. Compared with Ethereum ETF flows, “there appears to be a ‘re-rotation’ from Ethereum back to Bitcoin in terms of investor flows,” Dragosch said, citing their data. “Over the past week, flows into Bitcoin ETFs have surpassed new supply growth by a factor of 8.93 times, a key tailwind for Bitcoin’s recent performance.”  Analysts at K33 agree, writing that flows have been a key driver of bitcoin’s strength since ETF approvals earlier last year, and the latest surge signals an acceleration in demand that could underpin further price support. In the last 30 days, investors accumulated roughly 22,853 BTC via various products, outpacing the new supply of 14,056 BTC. This rising risk appetite for Bitcoin has supported the recent recovery, Bitwise noted in its Monday report. Fidelity’s FBTC product accounted for a substantial…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 10:19