Something that has troubled me mildly about this the more I think about it...
Posted by
TFox
Sep 29 '11, 12:38
|
Say you're a bank. I don't think (could be wrong) that you need to have enough cash on hand to process the withdrawal of all the deposits at the bank. So if you have $500M on deposit, you don't need an account out there with $500M in it to pay all the deposits out to people, do you? I really didn't think so, but maybe I'm wrong.
And if you don't, then what makes this different?
|
Responses:
-
But even if banks don't have those assets liquid, they still have the money in investments. I didn't think Full Tilt had that. -- nm
-
Ender
Sep 29, 12:48
2
-
I think a bank needs something like only 10% on hand -- nm
-
crash davis
Sep 29, 12:45
3
-
Nope, from what I know, banks don't. That's what the FDIC was for, in case of an "It's A Wonderful Life" situation.
-
JaxSean
Sep 29, 12:41
-
The difference is that banks have other standards they need to meet, and deposits are insured by the FDIC. -- nm
-
mara
Sep 29, 12:40
-
first of all, if it wants to be treated as a bank it needs to be chartered and regulated as such. -- nm
-
znufrii
Sep 29, 12:40
- [deleted]
4
|
