Following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank this spring, U.S. lawmakers have faced a policy head-scratcher. When bank runs happen on the internet, not at the teller’s window, how can the government ensure that smaller and regional banks can meet increased demands for liquidity during moments of panic? Excessive capital requirements would harm smaller banks more than larger ones, while reducing the demand for liquidity by increasing the amount of deposit insurance would create serious moral hazard.

Solving such a complex problem requires a fresh look at deposit insurance. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., to its credit, hinted at the answer in a May report on the history and nature of deposit insurance. It asked whether private insurance has a role to play. The answer is an emphatic yes—even if the FDIC doesn’t, so far, seem to agree.