Likely. It's like any insurance. Our FDA has a legal requirement as to the % the insurer must have available. It is well below 100% for any company.

Assurance like this as you say. The fact that governments with their own currency has the quantitive easing option means they can be a little more flexible than companies. But the cost is as described.

1995 was the last time we had to do it. With Baring's Bank, and it cost around 800m at the time.

But just like the US in 2008. Our government moved to use the same quantitive easing to bail out the banks rather than have to pay this way.

The issue is not so much the % of assets vs coverage. But how many banks when looked at under the marketing are owned by the same company. And even with so few companies. They are all taking the same risks.

So when a bank goes. Assurance like our FSCS and your FDIC only cover individual/personal accounts. Investment or company accounts do not have this protection.

So the huge mergers the last 30 to 40 years of banking have allowed. Means any one bank actually means millions of customers, rather than having the risk divided as the systems were set up for. And even if the company paid out those customers in such huge numbers. The quantitive easing would like be equalled by the actual damage to investment and company fiscal availability.

So econs are forced to do as both the US and UK did in 2008 rather than let the banks fail. Its just a mess. And i seems like the banks are just taking it for granted and refusing to learn.