Another flashback. TARP funds weren’t supposed to be used to bailout the auto industry so they played with the meaning of “financial institution” to get around that legal roadblock:

Congressional Oversight Panel: The Use of TARP Funds in Support and Reorganization of the Domestic Automotive Industry
cybercemetery.unt.edu

A filing by the United States in the GM [bankruptcy] case stated that, according to the statute, a “financial institution” is “any institution…established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States…and having significant operations in the United States.” On this basis, the United States concluded that “GM plainly fits within the statutory language because it is an “institution…established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States…and having significant operations in the United States.”

Based on this interpretation, the term “financial institution” means any institution organized under U.S. law with operations in the United States. This interpretation does not, however, seem to account for the phrase “including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company.” It also would seem to lend little weight to Congress‟s selection of the term “financial institution.” The canons of statutory construction, which traditionally provide guidance on how statutes should be interpreted, generally frown on interpretations that render any part of the statute superfluous. The rule against superfluities assumes that legislatures, in general, mean what they say and that the inclusion of certain words or phrases is not accidental. Using that assumption, Congress must be presumed to have had a purpose in listing institutions that might typically be considered “financial” institutions—banks, credit unions, broker dealers, and insurance companies.