The recent failure of Silicon Valley Bank, followed by US authorities' decision to bail out all depositors, has sparked a debate. While some see the bailout as a necessary preventative measure against a larger financial crisis, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent. Historically, in banking crises, governments have prioritized financial system stability over individual depositors.
During the Great Depression, for example, the government created the FDIC to insure bank deposits up to a certain amount rather than bailing out all depositors. In the case of Silicon Valley Bank, bailing out all depositors encourages risky behavior by both depositors and banks, creating a moral hazard. Furthermore, it establishes a dangerous precedent that may lead to future bank failures and bailouts.
A better strategy would have been to allow Silicon Valley Bank to fail while providing assistance to other banks in the form of loans and guarantees to avoid wider systemic issues. We can see from historical examples that there are alternative approaches that protect financial system stability without creating moral hazards.
Moral hazard is a well-known concept that has received a lot of attention in the context of bank bailouts. Depositors may become less cautious about monitoring the bank's risk-taking activities if they believe their funds are guaranteed to be protected by the government in the event of a bank failure. This, in turn, may encourage banks to take on more risk, resulting in more bank failures. The 2008 financial crisis was a prime example of this, with the US government bailing out several large banks, prompting accusations of moral hazard.
These systems seek to impose losses on the bank's shareholders, bondholders, and other unsecured creditors, including depositors who have funds that exceed their country's guarantee limit. By departing from this criterion, the United States has created a moral hazard in which banks and depositors take excessive risks knowing they will be bailed out if the worst happens. This sets a dangerous precedent because it shifts the costs of the bank's failure to taxpayers and other financial institutions rather than imposing losses on those who bear the greatest risk.
Silicon Valley Bank's recent decision to bail out all depositors has raised concerns that it may undermine the principles of bank resolution systems. These systems seek to impose losses on the bank's shareholders, bondholders, and other unsecured creditors, including depositors who have funds that exceed their country's guarantee limit. By departing from this criterion, the United States has created a moral hazard in which banks and depositors take excessive risks knowing they will be bailed out if the worst happens. This sets a dangerous precedent because it shifts the costs of the bank's failure to taxpayers and other financial institutions rather than imposing losses on those who bear the greatest risk.
Succor A kind of capitalism in which the government offers financial help or bailouts to failing firms and financial institutions in order to prevent their collapse is referred to as bailout capitalism. The term "succor" relates to the government's role in rescuing distressed firms. It signifies to provide relief or support in times of difficulty.
Succor Capitalism has been criticized for undermining free-market ideals by reducing business accountability and erasing the consequences of bad decisions. This method may create a moral hazard by encouraging reckless behavior and expose taxpayers to the risks of bailing out failing businesses. Despite these criticisms, Succor Capitalism has grown in popularity in recent years as governments have intervened to keep large financial institutions from collapsing during economic downturns.
Succor capitalism has become an important component of the American economic system, especially during times of crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government intervened with unprecedented stimulus packages and loan programs aimed at keeping businesses afloat and protecting jobs. These efforts amounted to trillions of dollars[1].These measures have received both support and criticism, with some arguing that they are necessary to avoid economic collapse and others expressing concerns about the long-term effects of increased government intervention.
However, the concept of aid capitalism is not new in America. The government has a long history of intervening to help failing businesses, especially those deemed critical to national security or the economy. The airline industry, for example, has received numerous government bailouts over the years, including during the 2008 financial crisis. In 2009, the government also bailed out the automobile industry to keep it from collapsing during the Great Recession.
The Panic of 1873, a catastrophic economic collapse that lasted six years, is one example. Many businesses and banks failed during this period, resulting in widespread unemployment and poverty. The National Bankruptcy Act of 1867 was enacted by the US government to assist struggling businesses and sectors. This act allowed corporations to declare bankruptcy and receive protection from creditors[1]. The act was the first to include protection for corporations, and it prompted the development of modern bankruptcy laws that emphasize rehabilitating debtors in distress with a limited emphasis on punishing them[1].
The bailouts and financial aid granted to failing organizations and sectors produced a sense of moral hazard, in which corporations and banks became less careful about taking risks, knowing that the government would come to their rescue if they failed.
This led to greater risky behavior and contributed to the subsequent economic bubbles and financial catastrophes, such as the Panic of 1893 and the Great Depression. While the government's efforts during the 1873 Panic served to alleviate acute economic distress, the long-term implications on the banking industry were negative.
The National Bankruptcy Act of 1867 was enacted to provide relief to individuals and businesses that were unable to pay their debts[1]. The act allowed debtors to file for bankruptcy and have their debts discharged, giving them a fresh start. However, the bailouts and financial aid granted to failing organizations and sectors produced a sense of moral hazard[1]. Moral hazard refers to the risk that individuals or organizations will take on more risk because they know they will be bailed out if things go wrong[1].
The information contained in Amarii Holdings website and newsletters is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. This information is not intended to constitute individual investment advice or to be tailored to your personal financial situation. The views and opinions expressed in these publications are those of the publisher and editors and are subject to change without notice. The information may become outdated and there is no obligation to update it. Any use of this information is at your own risk and Amarii Holdings accepts no liability for any loss or damage resulting from your reliance on it. You should consult with your financial advisers before making any investment decisions to determine if a particular investment is suitable for your needs.
Chad O. Grant
