> Even worse, well over half of the SVB bailout went to <20 accounts.
Do you have a source for this?
Do you have a source for this?
The first relevant link in DDG is a statement by the Chairman of the FDIC. He claims that the top ten accounts held more than 13.3B between them, which is more than 10% of the total of all deposits in the bank, and more than half of the $20B that the government is expected to payout in total. [1][2]
The FDIC would otherwise have had to pay a scant 3M of that, so there's 2/3 of the bailout just in those 10 accounts. If we include the next ten accounts, it will be much, much more. (One of the articles at the time claimed more than 85% went to 15 accounts, but I didn't want to be extreme without time to research sources.)
[1]: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gruenberg%20Tes... [2]: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23023.html
At the time of the collapse there were definitely articles making that claim, with analysis and numbers, and I still assume it to be correct.
When I saw this, I was surprised, it seemed too clean and straightforward. Will have to look for the original sources.
Looking at the source you provided from the Chairman of the FDIC, it actually says that the top ten accounts held $13.3B - not _more than_ $13.3B, as you claimed. The next ten accounts necessarily held less than that, so say a generous upper bound at $26.6B for the top twenty accounts. In order for them to get at least half of the bailout, they would have needed to hold north of $55B in aggregate. The FDIC itself would have to have gotten the size of SVB's largest depositors wrong by over double in order for your original claim to be true, in the absolute most generous case.