Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Alberta's Child

It means that the banks too unnecessary risks for profit. Banks are supposed to be conservative institutions, financially, where they don’t take much money out incase they have a bank run or something.

Instead of whatever historical ratio was considered a safe ratio between having money in the bank or loaned out or invested, the banks decided to have less money in the bank that the historical average. This puts them at risk for if too many people try to take money out.

I’m sure there is other reasons, but I’m only concerened with the one, because it directly affects if you can get your money back or not.


32 posted on 08/30/2024 8:35:49 AM PDT by Jonty30 (Genghis Khan did not have the most descendants. His father had more. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Jonty30

I still have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you give me an example of an “unnecessary risk” in the banking industry? Up to this point I have see no evidence of systemic bank problems related to what would traditionally be considered high-risk investments.


37 posted on 08/30/2024 8:53:15 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson