SVB Hall of Shame
Call me naïve, but if I put money in a bank I should be able to get it back whenever I want. If I didn't want it to be liquid, I'd buy something less liquid. The very concept of a bank run is ridiculous. If all a bank's customers want their cash back, they should be able to get it back without affecting the liquidity of the bank.Transaction accounts don't earn me anything and have fees of their own. There's little incentive to stay at one bank over another. If they want equity, they should sell long-term secured loans with LVRs under 100% or lock in my cash with term deposits or any number of other less liquid asset classes. But why should I feel guilt over moving my cash from one bank to another?Maybe it's because I'm Australian but I feel our banking industry is significantly more stable. The last time a bank had any serious issue was 1990 and it was a (single bank that itself was bailed out by the government). Australian banks make their money through mortgages (averaging less than 80% LVR or insurance-backed if higher and with fixed terms of generally no longer than 5 years), credit cards and management fees on long-term investment products -- they don't rely on investing cash deposits on long-term illiquid instruments.The fact this doesn't seem to be the case should raise questions over the entire US banking industry. Cash should be liquid.Edit: For reference, APRA (bank regulator in Australia) has some very strict liquidity risk management requirements and most banks own liquidity requirements are significantly higher than this: https://www.apra.gov.au/apra-explains-liquidity-banking -- an Australian bank would never be allowed to purchase a 10-30 year bond to match against cash assets.