5 ms·

don't disagree with most of what you said, but...you sure about this part? I would know that I could still withdraw my money because they have enough cash on h

• Xk 15y ago
  > don't disagree with most of what you said, but...you sure about this part? Yes. I am sure. I have far, far, far less than 0.000001% of the total money in the bank. If they could not produce this much money when I wanted it, there would be other serious problems. > Or if you want a more practical example, keep watching Greece If I was in Greece, I would not have my money in one of their banks.
  • latch 15y ago
    I thought we were talking within the context of "serious problems". As for greece, well..it happened to Washington Mutual in 2008 - the largest savings in loan institution in the US. Of course, this is only one of many US banks which were not able to produce money when it was wanted in 2008. There's a reason banks have a legal right to refuse a withdrawal, specifically because they may not have enough funds. That reason is: because it has and will happen.
    • tedunangst 15y ago
      I had my "life savings" in WaMu. Now it's in Chase. I didn't lose a penny. At no point was I unable to withdraw my money. What happened with Washington Mutual is not what's going to happen if there's a run on Mt Gox.
      • latch 15y ago
        There are stories (see consumerist.com) of cash withdrawals not being possible. I admit I got a little off track though. My parent specifically stated withdraw money when he wants. There's plenty of evidence that at the peak of the crisis, some people had problems. But I agree, it seemed to have been few, and in the context of Mt Gox, it isn't really relevant.
    • harshpotatoes 15y ago
      I don't know of a single person unable to withdraw their money from WaMu as it went under. All of WaMu's accounts were then passed on to chase, and chase honord them. If WaMu went under, the savings accounts would have been FDIC insured. None of that will happen if Mt Gox is compromised in some catastrophic way.
  • white_devil 15y ago
    > Yes. I am sure. I have far, far, far less than 0.000001% of the total money in the bank. If they could not produce this much money when I wanted it, there would be other serious problems. Last year, a branch office of a large bank in Finland was barely able to produce 10 000 euros in cash when I wanted to withdraw it. The clerk just didn't realize he shouldn't mention it. Don't be so sure.
    • hobolobo 15y ago
      Is that a case of the bank not having the money or just that branch not having the cash on hand?
      • white_devil 15y ago
        Each branch is supposed to function as a bank, right?
        • hobolobo 15y ago
          They're not autonomous though - individual branches don't hold the value of all their customers' accounts as cash. You're subject to a daily limit (though you can take more if you give them notice).
          • white_devil 15y ago
            Now we're just being pedantic. My point was that each branch should have enough cash to act as a "proper bank", whatever amount of money you'd reasonably expect one to have in its vault. But I'd sure expect more than 10k euro.
            • burgerbrain 15y ago
              If they barely had 10k in their vault, then it logically follows that they almost never need that much (otherwise they would obviously make it a point to keep more). If they rarely need that much, then it logically follows that somewhere at or less than 10k is a reasonable amount to have. There is no sense in taking the increased liability of having more if they don't need to. Furthermore, acting as a "proper bank" means they do a lot more than just acting as your personal piggy-bank/mattress. If they have all their money tied up in cash, it means they can't actually be preforming real bank activities (investment).
• tedunangst 15y ago
  mtgox accounts are not FDIC insured.
  • latch 15y ago
    I understand that. I am curious how effective insurance deposite works in the face of a country-wide breakdown. I know Greece has a deposit fund, I'm curious to see how effective it'll be (does it actually cover 100% of the deposited money (up to the maxium per account)?)
    • drivebyacct2 15y ago
      It doesn't. The FDIC doesn't have a fraction of the money needed to insure a fraction of the money that is supposedly FDIC-insured. More over, the United States likely lacks the gold to back our current currency, let alone the currency needed to prop up those who lose money in the situation of the decreasing number of banks failing.
      • georgemcbay 15y ago
        US currency hasn't even pretended to be backed by gold since the early 1970s.
        • drivebyacct2 15y ago
          I was more referring to the fact that we fail to produce proof of the limited amount of gold that we claim to have and every attempt to audit it is rebuked magically. In terms of the question, how would it be handled from an FDIC perspective if it came to a worst case scenario... it'd be a shit-show.
          • Locke1689 15y ago
            I was more referring to the fact that we fail to produce proof of the limited amount of gold that we claim to have and every attempt to audit it is rebuked magically. I think you're just rambling. Our currency isn't gold backed -- who cares how much the US govt. has in gold repositories and why does it need to be checked?
• ignifero 15y ago
  OK we are taking about vastly different scales here, but there is no absolutely trusted scheme in the world. The US has been printing money since 2008 to cover the losses of the Crisis, so the real world has an advantage here.
• clistctrl 15y ago
  The US government guarantees my bank account up to (i think 200k) There is no Internet Government that guarantees my bit coins.