Because (apparently; I'm just reading from their web site) they deposit your funds into 12 separate accounts at 12 separate FDIC banks so you are insured up to $3M and a single-bank failure can at worst take 1/12 of your deposits.
Seems like services like this should be more popular.
The problem here is one of fiscal immaturity at startups. SVB offered ICS accounts but from what I'm seeing few startups put their money into them. My bet is that startups mature enough to have a proper CFO weren't as impacted by this mess.
from what I've read, they're a standard practice in traditional finance/risk management circles? it's what makes the whole situation with SVB so much more mind-bending. this isn't some new technology that's never existed before. why were VCs insisting that money had to be held at SVB, knowing that by doing so, they'd put their funded companies above FDIC insurance thresholds?
Am I the only one wondering why they're allowed to circumvent the $250K cap like this?
Presumably there's a cap for a reason, and presumably it's to protect ordinary Americans who rarely have $250K in assets, and not rich people who can literally afford to lose that much and still be rich.
No, this is exactly what's supposed to happen. The FDIC wants large depositors to spread their deposits over many banks as this reduces overall risk. The limit is not about protecting "ordinary Americans" over "rich people".
Based on the description of what they do, how is that circumventing? You can do the same thing they're doing by depositing into multiple banks too. The only difference is that Mercury is the custodian, and doing it for you
does that mean that every time you purchase a coffee, 13 transactions take place to keep the distribution balanced?
otherwise 1/12th of your deposits would be the /best case scenario/ not the worst case.. it comes down to the details of how they balance the balances.
