They had the cash to cover uninsured deposits, not every deposit, something that most banks have. Hardly any bank is going to hold liquid assets up to the value of total deposits.
$45b into $107b doesn't go, but it shouldn't have had to. The media seemed to want this bank failure.
And that's why this collapse will continue. Because they're all playing this irresponsible shell game.
You might try to claim that it's okay because that's just how it is, but that's hardly a decent argument given that the results sure aren't going your way.
If they had the cash like they say they did, a run would not kill them. That only happens when you can't cover your deposits.
They had the cash to cover uninsured deposits, not every deposit, something that most banks have. Hardly any bank is going to hold liquid assets up to the value of total deposits.
$45b into $107b doesn't go, but it shouldn't have had to. The media seemed to want this bank failure.
So they were over stretched to the point of having forty percent or less of their deposits? Boy, if I had them for a bank I'd get my money out quick.
If you think any bank is holding 100% cash reserves or equivalents, you need a straitjacket and a padded room.
They're holding 40-50% cash, then the rest in bonds, just like FRC.
And that's why this collapse will continue. Because they're all playing this irresponsible shell game.
You might try to claim that it's okay because that's just how it is, but that's hardly a decent argument given that the results sure aren't going your way.