3 ms·
> I would also like to add that the vast majority of people losing their money were not betting on a risky asset But keeping all your money in one bank is sur
by thesimon 4y ago
> I would also like to add that the vast majority of people losing their money were not betting on a risky asset
But keeping all your money in one bank is surely a huge, obvious risk?
- epups 4y agoI think you are referring to the $250k limit. It's not very practical for companies to diversify according to that limit. Apple has 50 billion in reserves, do you think they can find 200 thousand banks to spread that around?
- tetrahedr0n 4y ago> Apple has 50 billion in reserves, do you think they can find 200 thousand banks to spread that around? Good question and of course, that's not likely. But then 50B in reserves isn't something you keep in a bank account, it's something you have rolled into several different financial instruments with varying levels of available liquidity.
- creato 4y ago> it's something you have rolled into several different financial instruments with varying levels of available liquidity. Like… SVB
- epups 4y agoCertainly, but what should be clear here is that we are not rescuing a failed investment. We are not giving out money to those who lost on crypto or whatever other risky asset. People are getting furious because they think something analogous to that is actually happening, when in fact all those companies are not at fault and did not benefit from SVB's suboptimal resource allocation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JamesDough 4y agoIf you have 50 billion in reserves, isn't it easier (and possibly cheaper) to have your own bank? Maybe someone can chime in why that isn't feasible.