a while back we were watching The Long Riders on TV and wondered what would happen to Farmer John’s money if the bank got robbed … I know these days it’s insured and he suffers no losses but from 1860 to 1930 was it sorry but tough luck? was there private bank insurance?
I’m pretty sure the FDIC is used to protect deposits if the bank would fail. Robbery would be covered until entirely different rules, especially in the pre-computer era.
It’s the bank’s money that gets taken, not the individual depositor’s. Unless the bank went under as a result of the theft, Farmer John is still able to access his funds. The bank (or its insurer) suffered the loss.
Which is why bank robbers were sometimes considered folk heroes by locals. If it were the local folks’ money and not the banks, it would be a different matter (note that Dillinger destroyed mortgage records, too, which was probably good for his popularity)
Remember that only a small fraction of the depositors’ money was kept as cash in the bank vault–most of it was loaned out.
None of us actually have any money deposited in banks. The banks have money of their own, some of which they owe us. Someone else taking that money doesn’t cancel their debt.
It couldn’t be the customers’ loss, because there’d be no way to say which customer’s money they took.
The biggest haul of the Dillinger Gang’s career came to around $75k. It appears to have been far more bank bonds than cash. The question is: How much of the Central National Bank of Greencastle’s assets does this represent? (Note that back then such a bank wasn’t part of a chain.)
(While this was several months after the FDIC was established, it may not have yet been covered and in any case the FDIC doesn’t cover bank robbery losses.)
It would seem to me that this represents just a small fraction of the equity in the loans they had made. But the issue would be liquidity.
In any case, the bank didn’t fold and was eventually absorbed into a merger in 1993.
My inference is that the bank went about it’s business with a dip in profits and depositors were unaffected.
(Hey, I have an idea for a movie. A small town bank has some cash lost which threatens a run. But since their money is tied up in home loans, it takes a passionate speech by the owner to calm things down. Maybe set it around a holiday, like, Halloween. Sounds like a winner.)
It’s a Wonderful idea.
Although, for the Life of me, I can’t think of what to name it.
Call it “The Rich Guy Still Gets Away with Theft”
“Saving Mister Banks”?
A small not to solvent bank could go under, and then yeah, you’d get pennies on the dollar.
One of my laughs is the heist films, where the “good guy” robbers are stealing from the “evil” bank. Nope.
Most banks have a banker’s blanket bond, so they are stealing from some insurance company.
“The Bell-Winger”
I thought the OP was asking about pre-FDIC days. So, federal deposit insurance wouldn’t have existed, right?
To the best of my knowledge, in the pre-FDIC days, if a bank got robbed, it was often SOL unless it could recover the money from the thieves. But it generally wouldn’t be enough to put the bank under so depositors were generally ok unless it led to a run on the bank. If the bank did go under as a result of a massive robbery, depositors might have been able to get a fraction of their money back when the bank liquidated.
Some deposit insurance companies did exist at a sub-federal level back then, but I don’t know to what extent nor what terms would have been common.
The FDIC protects bank customers. Before that, there was still insurance to protect the banks, because the Free Market naturally evolves in ways that favor those who already have money.