[greenhatman]

> we have chosen to put the burden for paying for those losses on all of the other banks

But isn't it likely to cause more bank runs if depositors lost money? So in a real sense, many other banks were saved from going under, by assuring depositors that their money is safe, whichever bank they're at.

My understanding is that other banks have massive unrealized losses as well, due to the steep interest rate increases. So they're all kind of vulnerable.

[blihp]

I'd say it's more likely that there will be at least slower rolling runs on smaller banks by large depositors. Keep in mind that the unlimited coverage only applies to the depositors of the two banks that were taken over, not all depositors everywhere. Keeping large balances in a bank that may not be deemed a systemic risk is still rolling the dice if said bank fails. (i.e. unless a bunch of other banks fail around the same time getting national attention, you'd probably be out of luck)