> It is disingenuous to say something required a SRE, will be guaranteed 100% by the government (ie. tax payers) - and then also claim it is not a bailout.
The whole FDIC system (with or without the systemic risk exception) is a system of bailouts of depositors paid for by assessments on banks (which, sure, are a kind of targeted tax, and thus constitute funding “by the taxpayers”.)
Other than the fact that your earlier points are indefensible, I’m not sure what the point of responding in thread with such a sudden radical shift of topic is, though.
> It is also disingenuous to claim a techy bank that catered to the tech sector posed an imminent risk to the entire banking system, ie the systemic part of the SRE.
I dunno, more than $100 billion in uninsured deposits, largely he operational accounts of a large number of businesses (not isolated to the tech sector, but mostly either geographically in the region of the bank or in the tech sector or both), which given the nature of the asset situation of the bank could be expected to either be resolved quickly at a very low percentage of face value or extremely slowly at a better percentage, would have massive knock-on effects on the businesses involved, there employees and investors, their creditor (ultimately, in large share, other banks), etc. Is it a different character of systemic risk, in some regards, than other previous invocations? Sure. But while there are clusters of similar case, systemic risks tend to be different from each other in details.
> A bunch of tech elites and big tech companies would have been burned - and some failover would have happened certainly, but this was not a system issue, it was bad choices made explicitly by banking executives at some specific banks.
The “systemic” in “systemic risk” refers to the scope and nature of the effects of the risk materializing, not the nature of the cause of the risk. The systemic risk exception is not about blame, its about the effects of inaction.
> It is also disingenuous to claim no tax payer money is involved when it is in fact tax payers that are providing all the guarantees here, bear future risks, and ultimately will pay for it with bank fees and more.
Maybe. Again, this is just a radical shift of topic.
> The entire thing is a political exercise.
Yes, acts of government are by definition political exercises. This is not, even slightly, in dispute. Are you just looking for random things unrelated to the earlier discussion to try to get into an argument about now?
