SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by fosk on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:18PM (#35142858)

Our deposits are liabilities for the bank (the bank needs the infra to secure the money, make it available everywhere at every ATM, bank tellers and so on). Banks invest the money (and give loans) to both pay for these costs and also make a small return on top.

It is possible to have a bank that just stores the money without touching it, but this bank would charge us for the costs of doing so, and it won’t be free, and it won’t be popular vs free options (which once every 10-20 years blow up).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by fidgewidge on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:28PM (#35143029)

Such banks would be highly popular if paired with the other half of the proposal which is to not bail out depositors at collapsed banks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial ... by worksonmine on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:55PM (#35143479)

Yes and I'm happy to pay, I'm actually paying 50$ a year as it is for my personal account only. They call it online-banking fee.And still they gamble with my money. I also have 2 company accounts where they charge even higher fees, just for deposits. It's not that I'm not willing to pay, but I was never asked to put my savings as collateral.

Meanwhile they're closing offices to save money, and making billions every year. They can make it work, we just have to demand it.

[ Parent | on HN ]