And yet he is wrong!

They were stuck with assets earning <2% for 10+ years, meanwhile depositors were demanding higher returns (else they would put their money in other banks, in 6m tbills, 10yr treasuries, etc.. all of which paid a lot more).

And thus, "it's not a solvency issue as long as depositors are stupid and don't realize they can get more $$$ from other banks" ends up being quite misleading

Yes, I mis-spoke. If only there was some way to edit tweets or to pin your replies to the top of a thread :P

If you reply directly to your initial tweet with your correction (perhaps QTing the person who asked), I think it will appear at the top, or at least get higher ranking. I often see replies "boosted" via the original author QTing them as a reply this way.

So they didn't require the deposits earning 2% to be in term CDs like sane banks and credit unions do?