> During two banking crises—the savings and loan crisis and the Global Financial Crisis—the FDIC has expended its entire insurance fund. On these occasions it has met insurance obligations directly from operating cash, or by borrowing through the Federal Financing Bank. Another option, which it has never used, is a direct line of credit with the Treasury on which it can borrow up to $100 billion.
So yes, it ran out of funds & had to borrow. It has not yet experienced a shock bad enough to leverage the Treasury line of credit but that’s a fig leaf IMO. The 2008 crisis saw the government bailing out banks through TARP to shore up failing banks to the tune of 700B. Without that, FDIC would have failed. So from that perspective, yet it was bailed out in 2008 & the funding from members wouldn’t have been anywhere near sufficient. That’s why I don’t understand the political football around TARP - “the full faith and credit of the US government” would have been meaningless if FDIC failed as that would have sent a giant shockwave of trust loss through the broader population as everyday people would have lost huge savings.
So yes, it ran out of funds & had to borrow. It has not yet experienced a shock bad enough to leverage the Treasury line of credit but that’s a fig leaf IMO. The 2008 crisis saw the government bailing out banks through TARP to shore up failing banks to the tune of 700B. Without that, FDIC would have failed. So from that perspective, yet it was bailed out in 2008 & the funding from members wouldn’t have been anywhere near sufficient. That’s why I don’t understand the political football around TARP - “the full faith and credit of the US government” would have been meaningless if FDIC failed as that would have sent a giant shockwave of trust loss through the broader population as everyday people would have lost huge savings.