I understand the concept of moral hazard. If a government guaranteed all bank deposits 100%, bank customers would simply go to the bank with the highest interest rates and rely on the guarantee that they couldn't lose anything. It guarantees 100% up to some (relatively) small limit (£85,000 in the UK) , because private individuals and very small businesses aren't in a position to judge how sound a bank may be.

However, it seems very harsh to destroy a small or start-up business should its bank fail, and the business suffer a complete loss of its capital. Also, that's not good for the wider economy, and perhaps might trigger a much wider financial crisis.

Why don't governments guarantee a fraction of larger deposits? Say 90%. It seems to me that a business which cannot survive a 10% "haircut" is a business that was probably headed for bankrupcy in the near future anyway. A better business would be able to keep going, and either modify its spending plans, or seek replacement funding for the 10% lost in the failed bank. But there would be no "moral hazard", because no business would want to risk 10% for the sake of a small fraction of a percent in interest. It would check the financial state of its banker to the best of its ability (which for a small business, is somewhat limited!)

Also, is the 100% guarantee up to a limit wise? Would making it 99% or 95% cause any systemic instability? I was once personally rescued when the Icelandic banks collapsed. I was astounded that I actually got back the interest I had been promised, as well as my capital. I'd have almost-happily accepted losing a few percent interest.

(90% is an arbitrary fraction I plucked out of the air.)

This question obviously prompted by the recent failure of SVB.

  • $\begingroup$ A business can presumably afford to buy insurance against bank failure, right? $\endgroup$
    – user253751
    Mar 15, 2023 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ @user253751 Can all businesses obtain such insurance? I'm thinking of start-ups and small businesses, not large ones. I haven't heard of it, but I'm not running a business. $\endgroup$
    – nigel222
    Mar 15, 2023 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ I'm told that insurance companies will insure you against all sorts of things, for a price. As an individual you are mostly buying pre-packaged options but if enough money is involved, they'll run the numbers and quote a price for a custom contract just for you. $\endgroup$
    – user253751
    Mar 15, 2023 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ No business has the majority of its assets in deposits. Many medium sized companies anyhow have accounts at different banks. There is also little risk for a wider financial crisis if some small startups fail because one bank fails. It's the same if a business fails because it's largest trading partner fails. At the end of the day, you cannot and shouldn't guarantee everything for everyone. $\endgroup$
    – Alex
    Mar 16, 2023 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex I believe start-ups may have a significant part of their assets in cash. They've raised cash by selling equity, and intend to live off the cash while developing and/or marketing the product. $\endgroup$
    – nigel222
    Mar 16, 2023 at 16:27

1 Answer 1


Usually the government effectively guarantees 100% of deposits anyway when push comes to shove. For example, with SVB, the US government quickly came out with a statement that depositors will be made whole, even though the FDIC only formally guarantees a certain amount.

Why the de jure guarantees can differ from de facto guarantees can have multiple reasons, including budgetary limits and political considerations. The trade-off between bad long term effects of moral hazard and bad short-term effects of self-fulfilling bank runs could also play a role, though I think this is not the main reason.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.