3 ms·
No it wouldn't have. The company would still be solvent and have a large number of total deposits, just less in total than they could've had otherwise. What t
by CydeWeys 4y ago
No it wouldn't have. The company would still be solvent and have a large number of total deposits, just less in total than they could've had otherwise. What they did literally destroyed the entire company; not doing so would not have had that result. The outcomes are not comparable.
- darkerside 4y agoWhat? Anybody with financial sense has noticed that rates have skyrocketed, and if you're still earning less than 1%, you're throwing money away. The more money you have, the bigger a deal that is.
- CydeWeys 4y agoBank accounts are very sticky and most people don't move them in search of better rates. In particular, people are not thinking of cash sitting in a checking account as anything other than short term cash they don't expect to earn a return on anyway, so you wouldn't change your entire commercial bank (that everyone else in your industry also uses and expects) just to chase some small returns.
- darkerside 4y agoSVB was holding so many uninsured deposits because they were the operating cash for businesses. If you have $100M, the difference in interest would be $3M a year between 1% and 4%. What kind of business wouldn't be paying attention to that?