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

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/

Market Opportunity
Dogechain Logo
Dogechain Price(DC)
$0.000006584
$0.000006584$0.000006584
-1.34%
USD
Dogechain (DC) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
QNT Technical Analysis Jan 21

QNT Technical Analysis Jan 21

The post QNT Technical Analysis Jan 21 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. QNT’s MACD histogram showing a positive trend and RSI stabilizing in the neutral zone
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/21 23:54
SHIB Alert: First Three-Hour Death Cross Flashes on Chart in 2026, Is It Important?

SHIB Alert: First Three-Hour Death Cross Flashes on Chart in 2026, Is It Important?

The post SHIB Alert: First Three-Hour Death Cross Flashes on Chart in 2026, Is It Important? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Shiba Inu is forming a death cross
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/22 00:26