Its meaningless, if someone puts over 100k on a bank account where inflation eats it away they probably dont care about interest rates and its just a fraction of someone holdings that is deposited at super low risk/high availability. This only makes sense if you have way more and the rest is actually invested and grows. Storing you whole savings like that is rather stupid regardless of if you reach the limit and pay interest rates or not. and putting it as banknotes in a safe is similar stupid potentially even more stupid because there is real chance you physically lose it all.

Most people are not going to invest 100% of their savings in things like stock market (most people might be 60/40 or less).

Cash at a bank is the best you can do in terms of risk free asset (for people in CH it's the equivalent of a bond allocation in a portfolio, just with higher return).

Yes there are saner things to do with 100k, but GP was just comparing the 2 options, and you asked "Hows that better than a bank account?" and I answered...

Its clearly not better, its worse. You exchange possible interest rates with a rather incalculable risk of total loss or some absurd insurance fees which are likely to be higher. If putting paper in a safe would be better then someone (probably the bank itself) would offer that as a service. If they cant make it lucrative at scale you certainly cant either.

Sigh, you made me regret responding to your initial question.

FWIW commercial banks have had negative interest rates for a few years now.

https://www.truewealth.ch/en/blog/negative-interest-switzerl...

You completely ignore my point and instead provided a proof for what no one questioned.

The regret only grows. Now I'm torn between trying to explain the concept of imaginary scenarios where the scope is limited and crafting a statement with a hidden insult somewhere.

If this were a party conversation, imagine me walking away rolling my eyes and shaking my head...