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 [email protected] 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

SEC issues investor guide on crypto wallets and custody risks

SEC issues investor guide on crypto wallets and custody risks

The SEC released a guide on crypto wallets and custody for investors.
Paylaş
Cryptopolitan2025/12/14 08:38
UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach

UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach

The post UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The UK and US are reportedly preparing to deepen cooperation on digital assets, with Britain looking to copy the Trump administration’s crypto-friendly stance in a bid to boost innovation.  UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discussed on Tuesday how the two nations could strengthen their coordination on crypto, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.  The discussions also involved representatives from crypto companies, including Coinbase, Circle Internet Group and Ripple, with executives from the Bank of America, Barclays and Citi also attending, according to the report. The agreement was made “last-minute” after crypto advocacy groups urged the UK government on Thursday to adopt a more open stance toward the industry, claiming its cautious approach to the sector has left the country lagging in innovation and policy.  Source: Rachel Reeves Deal to include stablecoins, look to unlock adoption Any deal between the countries is likely to include stablecoins, the Financial Times reported, an area of crypto that US President Donald Trump made a policy priority and in which his family has significant business interests. The Financial Times reported on Monday that UK crypto advocacy groups also slammed the Bank of England’s proposal to limit individual stablecoin holdings to between 10,000 British pounds ($13,650) and 20,000 pounds ($27,300), claiming it would be difficult and expensive to implement. UK banks appear to have slowed adoption too, with around 40% of 2,000 recently surveyed crypto investors saying that their banks had either blocked or delayed a payment to a crypto provider.  Many of these actions have been linked to concerns over volatility, fraud and scams. The UK has made some progress on crypto regulation recently, proposing a framework in May that would see crypto exchanges, dealers, and agents treated similarly to traditional finance firms, with…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:21