8 ms·

The problem is that most people don't want to change banks. If changing your bank to get a better savings rate took 15 minutes and had no other consequences, b

by mabbo 6y ago

The problem is that most people don't want to change banks. If changing your bank to get a better savings rate took 15 minutes and had no other consequences, banks would be updating their rates by the second to beat one another. But it doesn't. If your mortgage, credit cards, car loan, etc, are all with the same bank then switching your bank account only just to get 0.1% higher interest is a huge hassle for little benefit. Especially if you don't have much money sitting in a savings account- even with $5000 in your account, a 0.1% difference is $5/year. So what banks are actually competing over is the people who happen to be shopping around for a new bank- something most people do only a handful of times in their life. Meanwhile, leaving rates low improves the banks bottom line. Short term vs long term tradeoffs. In short: banks have little reason to raise savings account interest rates regardless of what their central bank gives them.

jacquesm 6y ago
And your typical mortgage contract will include clauses that stop you from moving your mortgage to some other provider without penalty. You can get badly locked in like that with rates from a decade ago.
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  AFAIK only PMI can have prepayment penalties. You’ll still have to pay closing costs on and qualify for a new mortgage.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  This isn’t true in the US. Typically, you can refinance anytime you want, and I’ve never seen a prepayment penalty. Closing costs aren’t a penalty, as it does take some work to get a mortgage. Although in free money times, even that is sometimes waived by lenders.
frereubu 6y ago
In the UK this has got a lot better with banks being forced to offer an "account switching service", which makes it trivial to change your current (checking) account. Things like salaries, standing orders and direct debits (for utility bills etc.) are automatically transferred across. It doesn't work with savings accounts though as far as I know, so it doesn't help much with managing interest rates other than interest-paying current accounts. As you say though, there are so many complicated conditions around getting paletry interest rates - only available on first £5k, or rates that reset to 0.1% after 12 months - that I'm not sure people would change much anyway.
- OJFord 6y ago
  But it's also not a problem for savings accounts in the first place? Other than if you have a standing order(s) paying in I suppose, but that's probably only one, and unlike direct debits etc. all in your control and less hassle to move.
  - frereubu 6y ago
    It's certainly less of a problem. But people are notoriously lazy, and a service where you could switch savings accounts in the same way as a current account would make it more likely. It's the cost / benefit trade-off, so if differences in interest rates are very small you need to make it even easier for people to switch. For example, I'm being paid 0.3% on a current-acount-linked savings account. If I could switch that to NS&I (1%) more simply than I can currently, I would. But given the relatively low amount in the account, and how much I feel my time is worth, it just doesn't feel worth it to me. Yeah, I'm lazy. But so are lots of other people, and it would change the dynamics of the savings account market if it was easy enough to make me want to switch.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Does that work reliably in the UK? Germany has similar a similar mandatory service, but the few people I know that switched banks using that service all ran into major trouble, like rent payments, insurance premiums etc not going through and the two banks pointing at each other "we don't know, it's those guys". In the end, I believe the best course of actions would to simply make account numbers transferable. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to switch my bank and keep my account number etc just like I do with my mobile phone number and provider. Of course, Bank Codes being used makes this more difficult (thank you, regulation).
  - rand49an 6y ago
    I've switched banks 4 times over the last few years to take advantage of different deals offering a few hundred pounds or so for join-ups. Never had an issue.
  - 6y ago
amiga_500 6y ago
We should each have our own account number that is ours. This could be registered with the state, when born. It would contain a pointer to a private bank account. Banks would have to implement a one day transfer to flip the pointer.
- teeray 6y ago
  And while we’re at it, we can strip the account number of its powers as a payment / deposit authorization. It supremely sucks that once someone has it and your routing number, it can never be rescinded without changing account numbers (i.e. closing and reopening the account, re-establishing direct debits / deposits, etc.)
- salawat 6y ago
  Who is maintaining the ledger exactly? On what terms? Who has access to that account? What controls are they entitled to place on it? Is it maintained by the government? If yes, then you have a whole new set of problems. Now you have all your funds in one basket. (Remember, you've implemented the indirection mechanism, so it doesn't matter which bank you do business with, it's this weird government one all the time). Politically, I don't see it happening. Or if it does, it"'ll completely change the color of the financial sector most likely, as most regular people stick with this weird government account, but anyone more financially entrenched (or who have trust issues, and do not desire to let the G-man sit on their financial transaction history) flee to more "discrete" financial institutions. Fintech is one of those that rarely makes anything fundamentally "better"; just more expensive with more opportunities for fee extraction, and the capability to exploit those economies of scale like nobodies business. Maybe it is the way to go for a government maintained version. Might make the IRS's job that much easier. Maybe they can get away from only going after the small fry and actually concentrating on nailing down more complicated forms of tax evasion.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    Sorry I'm not American so I'm not obsessed with the idea that the state cannot maintain something. Your banking sector sucks compared to Europe.
latortuga 6y ago
This is true, but there's nothing that prevents you from having a second bank for savings only. This is what I've always done, open a savings account at whatever bank has the best rates, typically an online-only bank. Savings is useful for liquidity in an emergency and I'd be crazy to not try to get a few points on it in exchange for a few clicks.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  This is my route too. I have accounts at 4 institutions with various levels of service. 2 of them provide good rates on savings 1 is local and has ATMs and branches in my area 1 provides a fantastic online experience Once you've verified accounts between banks, it's fairly painless to transfer between them (and usually free if you initiate the transfer from the bank that will receive the funds) Works very well and gives me a lot of flexibility with basically no additional work. It takes all of 5 minutes once a month to configure deposits to hit the current winner on interest rates.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I'd also note that I've been happy to see ACH transfer times decrease dramatically in the last 5-6 years. Used to be consistently 3 days, 2 if you were lucky. I now regularly see same day transfers. PayPal -> bank is getting close to european speed: if I schedule an ACH transfer with them around midnight, it will be in my bank during the following 12 hours.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Yeah, I moved my savings from the < 0.1% Citibank "Savings" account to the 2.2% Ally Bank last year. Setting it up was as hard as making a HN account. I can transfer money CB -> Ally with a few clicks. Only real friction is I can only move $10k at a time every N (4?) days. Before you get too excited, the Ally rate is now down to 1.1%.
  - qzw 6y ago
    Try an American Express savings account. Usually the same rate as Ally, but allows much higher transfer limits. And you don’t have to have an AmEx credit card to open one. It’s my go to “middle man” account between ones that have ridiculously low transfer limits. I don’t know why these limits aren’t set as a percentage of the account balance at least. If it’s for reducing fraud, then how about implementing proper two-factor auth for logins as well as transactions over some threshold. The banking system in the US is such an embarrassment in many ways.
mindslight 6y ago
I think most people are worried about changing banks because their current bank hits them with annoying fees, and they don't want to double the problem by having two banks. But online banks (along with small local banks and credit unions) do not charge monthly fees. You can open a new account with a small deposit, receive a new debitcard/checkbook, and then slowly transition. The only squeeze you'll feel is the minimum balance requirement at your legacy bank as you split your balance to cover transactions at both places.
eightysixfour 6y ago
I have always believed there is room for an $xx/year service in the US that provides a virtual bank account number so you can easily switch banks in the background. The decrease in switching friction may actually make banking interesting/competitive again.
- ktaylora 6y ago
  Fidelity and other major online brokerages do this with their money market accounts. It doesn't chase an optimal yield like what you are proposing, but that would be interesting. Instead, they use a large basket of money market and savings accounts at US banks and interest payments on your savings are drawn from a random bank in the basket each month. Because the federal reserve sets interest rates, it's difficult to chase yield in bank savings accounts. You'll always do better with bonds and stock dividends.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- sukilot 6y ago
  There's no need. No one knows your savings account number, just your checking account number.
- tacostakohashi 6y ago
  Once people started using any such service, they would realise that their customers are locked in / can't switch easily, so they'd raise their prices to $xx+1 each year... and then you're back to where you started from.
ac29 6y ago
Opening a online, high-yield savings account takes much less than 15 minutes. Many of these banks dont even offer checking accounts, so you couldn't switch everything else over even if you wanted to. Many people in the US have no problem opening and using multiple credit cards, so having multiple bank accounts shouldn't be too difficult.
- deegles 6y ago
  You don't earn interest on your money while it's in transit (seems to be around 1-2 days). If you're constantly shuffling money around, it might not make sense unless the rates are significantly higher. You'd have to do the math. Here's a calculator I found: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/the-ultimate-interest-rate-chaser-calculator.html https://www.mymoneyblog.com/the-ultimate-interest-rate-chase...
- basch 6y ago
  It's also basically as easy to stick with your current institution and put cash into ICSH (https://www.ishares.com/us/products/258806/ishares-liquidity-income-etf https://www.ishares.com/us/products/258806/ishares-liquidity...) or if youre worried about inflation TIP/SCHP (https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239467/ishares-tips-bond-etf https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239467/isha... https://www.schwabfunds.com/products/schp https://www.schwabfunds.com/products/schp) It has the benefit of working anywhere, without switching banks, and the time to liquidate and get it back into your checking account will be 2 days, similar to moving money between institutions. The benefit being the entire transaction happens within the purview and responsibility of one customer service organization. It's not quite cash and interest, but in effect its going to be basically the same thing.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> So what banks are actually competing over is the people who happen to be shopping around for a new bank- something most people do only a handful of times in their life. It's worse than that. I shopped around for a new bank based on my needs -- I picked Capital One specifically because of their advertised "no foreign transaction fees". [In fact, there's a fee around 1%, it's just not called a "foreign transaction fee". But 1% is low enough for me.] Interest on savings accounts didn't register at all. And really, interest on savings accounts shouldn't register for anyone looking for a bank account, because savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong.
- dangerboysteve 6y ago
  I wonder if most people start out banking based on where their parents bank? And most only switch when there is an event which make them unhappy with the bank.
- catblast 6y ago
  > you're doing it wrong. What else do you suggest that is liquid and essentially risk free? There is a purpose for this type of product. If not a high yield savings account, what is it?
- gpanders 6y ago
  > savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong. Agreed. > And really, interest on savings accounts shouldn't register for anyone looking for a bank account Disagreed. Emergency funds/long-term cash deposits are a real and valuable thing, and while it's true that any money in a savings account loses value to inflation, you'd be crazy to not try to minimize the gap between your interest rate and inflation as much as possible. The difference between a 0.1% interest rate at Chase (or whatever) and ~2% at Ally is huge (I realize no one has 2% interest rates anymore, but those numbers were both roughly accurate before Covid).
- jbay808 6y ago
  > savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong. Note that this wasn't always the case, though. Until not too long ago, keeping your money in a savings account, not making too many "risky" investments, and benefiting from compound interest in the long term while saving for retirement was considered basic financial literacy. However, by now interest rates have been near zero and well below inflation for the entire adult lives of anyone under ~35, so the common wisdom has shifted to investing your money in the market being basic financial literacy.
peacefulhat 6y ago
It’s a cartel. Good luck with a consumer-driven fix.
mey 6y ago
That's fine, I use a credit card like a charge card, have my credit union as my check clearing house with minimal operating funds, and float the rest where I can get good rates. I can shop around the credit card and savings accounts at any time.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
There are services (google Max my Interest, this is not a product plug) that will allow you to automatically shuffle money between many high-yield online savings accounts. They'll make sure that your money stays in the highest-yielding account, but remains under the FDIC insurance limits.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  For the lazy there are prime money market funds. In this panic and the '08 panic, the Treasury/Fed stepped in to protect prime funds. It's not fair to people who buy government funds, or jump through hoops to spread cash across banks. But that's what they do.
  - mrep 6y ago
    > It's not fair to people who buy government funds Are you suggesting our government should prioritize investors who buy government bonds over its own citizens (who at least in theory, would have to pay for those bonds in the future with taxes)?
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      No. I am saying that money market funds that buy short-term treasuries ("government funds") have the same level of safety as insured deposits. Because of this safety, they have lower yields than prime funds which invest in unsecured short-term corporate debt. It is unfair to the careful people who invest in government funds to bail out prime fund investors every time it looks like they might lose 0.5-1%.
      - mrep 6y ago
        > It is unfair to the careful people who invest in government funds to bail out prime fund investors every time it looks like they might lose 0.5-1%. Can you explain this more? How are they bailing out prime fund investors?

by mabbo 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

And your typical mortgage contract will include clauses that stop you from moving your mortgage to some other provider without penalty. You can get badly locked in like that with rates from a decade ago.

votepaunchy 6y ago
AFAIK only PMI can have prepayment penalties. You’ll still have to pay closing costs on and qualify for a new mortgage.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
This isn’t true in the US. Typically, you can refinance anytime you want, and I’ve never seen a prepayment penalty. Closing costs aren’t a penalty, as it does take some work to get a mortgage. Although in free money times, even that is sometimes waived by lenders.

frereubu 6y ago

In the UK this has got a lot better with banks being forced to offer an "account switching service", which makes it trivial to change your current (checking) account. Things like salaries, standing orders and direct debits (for utility bills etc.) are automatically transferred across. It doesn't work with savings accounts though as far as I know, so it doesn't help much with managing interest rates other than interest-paying current accounts. As you say though, there are so many complicated conditions around getting paletry interest rates - only available on first £5k, or rates that reset to 0.1% after 12 months - that I'm not sure people would change much anyway.

OJFord 6y ago
But it's also not a problem for savings accounts in the first place? Other than if you have a standing order(s) paying in I suppose, but that's probably only one, and unlike direct debits etc. all in your control and less hassle to move.
- frereubu 6y ago
  It's certainly less of a problem. But people are notoriously lazy, and a service where you could switch savings accounts in the same way as a current account would make it more likely. It's the cost / benefit trade-off, so if differences in interest rates are very small you need to make it even easier for people to switch. For example, I'm being paid 0.3% on a current-acount-linked savings account. If I could switch that to NS&I (1%) more simply than I can currently, I would. But given the relatively low amount in the account, and how much I feel my time is worth, it just doesn't feel worth it to me. Yeah, I'm lazy. But so are lots of other people, and it would change the dynamics of the savings account market if it was easy enough to make me want to switch.
luckylion 6y ago
Does that work reliably in the UK? Germany has similar a similar mandatory service, but the few people I know that switched banks using that service all ran into major trouble, like rent payments, insurance premiums etc not going through and the two banks pointing at each other "we don't know, it's those guys". In the end, I believe the best course of actions would to simply make account numbers transferable. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to switch my bank and keep my account number etc just like I do with my mobile phone number and provider. Of course, Bank Codes being used makes this more difficult (thank you, regulation).
- rand49an 6y ago
  I've switched banks 4 times over the last few years to take advantage of different deals offering a few hundred pounds or so for join-ups. Never had an issue.
- 6y ago

amiga_500 6y ago

We should each have our own account number that is ours. This could be registered with the state, when born. It would contain a pointer to a private bank account. Banks would have to implement a one day transfer to flip the pointer.

teeray 6y ago
And while we’re at it, we can strip the account number of its powers as a payment / deposit authorization. It supremely sucks that once someone has it and your routing number, it can never be rescinded without changing account numbers (i.e. closing and reopening the account, re-establishing direct debits / deposits, etc.)
salawat 6y ago
Who is maintaining the ledger exactly? On what terms? Who has access to that account? What controls are they entitled to place on it? Is it maintained by the government? If yes, then you have a whole new set of problems. Now you have all your funds in one basket. (Remember, you've implemented the indirection mechanism, so it doesn't matter which bank you do business with, it's this weird government one all the time). Politically, I don't see it happening. Or if it does, it"'ll completely change the color of the financial sector most likely, as most regular people stick with this weird government account, but anyone more financially entrenched (or who have trust issues, and do not desire to let the G-man sit on their financial transaction history) flee to more "discrete" financial institutions. Fintech is one of those that rarely makes anything fundamentally "better"; just more expensive with more opportunities for fee extraction, and the capability to exploit those economies of scale like nobodies business. Maybe it is the way to go for a government maintained version. Might make the IRS's job that much easier. Maybe they can get away from only going after the small fry and actually concentrating on nailing down more complicated forms of tax evasion.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  Sorry I'm not American so I'm not obsessed with the idea that the state cannot maintain something. Your banking sector sucks compared to Europe.

latortuga 6y ago

This is true, but there's nothing that prevents you from having a second bank for savings only. This is what I've always done, open a savings account at whatever bank has the best rates, typically an online-only bank. Savings is useful for liquidity in an emergency and I'd be crazy to not try to get a few points on it in exchange for a few clicks.

horsawlarway 6y ago
This is my route too. I have accounts at 4 institutions with various levels of service. 2 of them provide good rates on savings 1 is local and has ATMs and branches in my area 1 provides a fantastic online experience Once you've verified accounts between banks, it's fairly painless to transfer between them (and usually free if you initiate the transfer from the bank that will receive the funds) Works very well and gives me a lot of flexibility with basically no additional work. It takes all of 5 minutes once a month to configure deposits to hit the current winner on interest rates.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I'd also note that I've been happy to see ACH transfer times decrease dramatically in the last 5-6 years. Used to be consistently 3 days, 2 if you were lucky. I now regularly see same day transfers. PayPal -> bank is getting close to european speed: if I schedule an ACH transfer with them around midnight, it will be in my bank during the following 12 hours.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Yeah, I moved my savings from the < 0.1% Citibank "Savings" account to the 2.2% Ally Bank last year. Setting it up was as hard as making a HN account. I can transfer money CB -> Ally with a few clicks. Only real friction is I can only move $10k at a time every N (4?) days. Before you get too excited, the Ally rate is now down to 1.1%.
- qzw 6y ago
  Try an American Express savings account. Usually the same rate as Ally, but allows much higher transfer limits. And you don’t have to have an AmEx credit card to open one. It’s my go to “middle man” account between ones that have ridiculously low transfer limits. I don’t know why these limits aren’t set as a percentage of the account balance at least. If it’s for reducing fraud, then how about implementing proper two-factor auth for logins as well as transactions over some threshold. The banking system in the US is such an embarrassment in many ways.

mindslight 6y ago

I think most people are worried about changing banks because their current bank hits them with annoying fees, and they don't want to double the problem by having two banks. But online banks (along with small local banks and credit unions) do not charge monthly fees. You can open a new account with a small deposit, receive a new debitcard/checkbook, and then slowly transition. The only squeeze you'll feel is the minimum balance requirement at your legacy bank as you split your balance to cover transactions at both places.

eightysixfour 6y ago

I have always believed there is room for an $xx/year service in the US that provides a virtual bank account number so you can easily switch banks in the background. The decrease in switching friction may actually make banking interesting/competitive again.

ktaylora 6y ago
Fidelity and other major online brokerages do this with their money market accounts. It doesn't chase an optimal yield like what you are proposing, but that would be interesting. Instead, they use a large basket of money market and savings accounts at US banks and interest payments on your savings are drawn from a random bank in the basket each month. Because the federal reserve sets interest rates, it's difficult to chase yield in bank savings accounts. You'll always do better with bonds and stock dividends.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sukilot 6y ago
There's no need. No one knows your savings account number, just your checking account number.
tacostakohashi 6y ago
Once people started using any such service, they would realise that their customers are locked in / can't switch easily, so they'd raise their prices to $xx+1 each year... and then you're back to where you started from.

ac29 6y ago

Opening a online, high-yield savings account takes much less than 15 minutes. Many of these banks dont even offer checking accounts, so you couldn't switch everything else over even if you wanted to. Many people in the US have no problem opening and using multiple credit cards, so having multiple bank accounts shouldn't be too difficult.

deegles 6y ago
You don't earn interest on your money while it's in transit (seems to be around 1-2 days). If you're constantly shuffling money around, it might not make sense unless the rates are significantly higher. You'd have to do the math. Here's a calculator I found: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/the-ultimate-interest-rate-chaser-calculator.html https://www.mymoneyblog.com/the-ultimate-interest-rate-chase...
basch 6y ago
It's also basically as easy to stick with your current institution and put cash into ICSH (https://www.ishares.com/us/products/258806/ishares-liquidity-income-etf https://www.ishares.com/us/products/258806/ishares-liquidity...) or if youre worried about inflation TIP/SCHP (https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239467/ishares-tips-bond-etf https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239467/isha... https://www.schwabfunds.com/products/schp https://www.schwabfunds.com/products/schp) It has the benefit of working anywhere, without switching banks, and the time to liquidate and get it back into your checking account will be 2 days, similar to moving money between institutions. The benefit being the entire transaction happens within the purview and responsibility of one customer service organization. It's not quite cash and interest, but in effect its going to be basically the same thing.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> So what banks are actually competing over is the people who happen to be shopping around for a new bank- something most people do only a handful of times in their life. It's worse than that. I shopped around for a new bank based on my needs -- I picked Capital One specifically because of their advertised "no foreign transaction fees". [In fact, there's a fee around 1%, it's just not called a "foreign transaction fee". But 1% is low enough for me.] Interest on savings accounts didn't register at all. And really, interest on savings accounts shouldn't register for anyone looking for a bank account, because savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong.

dangerboysteve 6y ago
I wonder if most people start out banking based on where their parents bank? And most only switch when there is an event which make them unhappy with the bank.
catblast 6y ago
> you're doing it wrong. What else do you suggest that is liquid and essentially risk free? There is a purpose for this type of product. If not a high yield savings account, what is it?
gpanders 6y ago
> savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong. Agreed. > And really, interest on savings accounts shouldn't register for anyone looking for a bank account Disagreed. Emergency funds/long-term cash deposits are a real and valuable thing, and while it's true that any money in a savings account loses value to inflation, you'd be crazy to not try to minimize the gap between your interest rate and inflation as much as possible. The difference between a 0.1% interest rate at Chase (or whatever) and ~2% at Ally is huge (I realize no one has 2% interest rates anymore, but those numbers were both roughly accurate before Covid).
jbay808 6y ago
> savings accounts are a terrible, terrible way to invest your money. If you have money in a savings account for the purpose of earning interest, you're doing it wrong. Note that this wasn't always the case, though. Until not too long ago, keeping your money in a savings account, not making too many "risky" investments, and benefiting from compound interest in the long term while saving for retirement was considered basic financial literacy. However, by now interest rates have been near zero and well below inflation for the entire adult lives of anyone under ~35, so the common wisdom has shifted to investing your money in the market being basic financial literacy.

peacefulhat 6y ago

It’s a cartel. Good luck with a consumer-driven fix.

mey 6y ago

That's fine, I use a credit card like a charge card, have my credit union as my check clearing house with minimal operating funds, and float the rest where I can get good rates. I can shop around the credit card and savings accounts at any time.

matthewdgreen 6y ago

There are services (google Max my Interest, this is not a product plug) that will allow you to automatically shuffle money between many high-yield online savings accounts. They'll make sure that your money stays in the highest-yielding account, but remains under the FDIC insurance limits.

rmrfstar 6y ago
For the lazy there are prime money market funds. In this panic and the '08 panic, the Treasury/Fed stepped in to protect prime funds. It's not fair to people who buy government funds, or jump through hoops to spread cash across banks. But that's what they do.
- mrep 6y ago
  > It's not fair to people who buy government funds Are you suggesting our government should prioritize investors who buy government bonds over its own citizens (who at least in theory, would have to pay for those bonds in the future with taxes)?
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    No. I am saying that money market funds that buy short-term treasuries ("government funds") have the same level of safety as insured deposits. Because of this safety, they have lower yields than prime funds which invest in unsecured short-term corporate debt. It is unfair to the careful people who invest in government funds to bail out prime fund investors every time it looks like they might lose 0.5-1%.
    - mrep 6y ago
      > It is unfair to the careful people who invest in government funds to bail out prime fund investors every time it looks like they might lose 0.5-1%. Can you explain this more? How are they bailing out prime fund investors?