Relatedly, the FDIC is built as an insurance pool and has always stated coverage as a minimum with no explicit maximum coverage. It's entirely possible to see the FDIC's over-coverage here as an explicit "this pool has seen lower portfolio risk than expected" which may only indicate that past rates were higher than necessary versus real world risk profiles and that serves no expectation of future rate changes just a sign of a very healthy risk pool. (It's just as possible to argue that if the insurance pool was able to 100% cover the deposits in this event that actuaries should reevaluate the risks for the entire pool and decrease rates moving forward to stronger align with the expected minimum coverage and present risk assesment knowledge of the likelihood of events of this scale.)

>Have the FDIC rates actually changed or is this a hypothetical.

It's hypothetical. The FDIC is likely to recover a vast majority of the uninsured deposits through asset sales, people just want to be outraged.

At smaller banks, 60-75% of uninsured deposits are usually recovered by FDIC and those banks went out of business for bad balance sheets, not bank runs due to duration mismatch.

We've gotten so used to assuming every statement is spin on 'you're getting screwed' that people assume it's always the case.

100% hypothetical.

Of course the banks are only happy to have ANY justification to complain and not raise saving rates, and blame the Federal Government.

But there have been no indication yet that the FDIC will be drawing on the insurance fund to cover the depositors.