As #AdamLevitin put it on #CreditSlips:
> They will pass those premiums through to customers because the market for banking services is less competitive than the market for capital. In particular, the higher costs for increased insurance premiums are likely to flow to the least price-sensitive and most “sticky” customers: less wealthy individuals. So average Joes are going to be facing things like higher account fees or lower APYs, without gaining any benefit.
6/
Writing for #CreditSlips, the #FinanceLaw scholar #AdamLevitin admits to feeling a bit of schadenfreude in that moment. The "blue collar" law scholars in "grubby" banking and money fields have always treated the conlaw set as "slightly clueless toffs":
As a field, conlaw fiercely resists the idea that their field is "largely a battle of normative opinions, without any quasi-objective touchstone or clearly right or wrong answers."
2/
Last year, I savored a bit of schadenfreude watching my con law scholar colleagues despair about their field after cases like Dobbs v. Women's Health Organization or West Virginia v. EPA. Con law scholars see themselves as the royalty of...
But as #AdamLevitin writes for Credit Slips, banks "will pass those premiums through to customers because the market for banking services is less competitive than the market for capital...higher costs for increased insurance premiums are likely to flow to the least price-sensitive and most 'sticky' customers: less wealthy individuals"
19/
When #Biden said, "investors in the banks will not be protected. They knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn’t pay off, investors lose their money. That’s how capitalism works," he was ignoring the fact that this isn't how *the law* works.
Writing on @creditslips, the incomparable #AdamLevitin - the best source on bankruptcy law writing on the web today - breaks it down: "creditors of a subsidiary have no claim on the assets of a parent."
2/
Cory Doctorow