That assumes the banks and the money endured (like gold has endured) for 2,000 years, which they did not. You may find some of that old money in museums, but not much.
Actually what I had assumed was a creature who had somehow lived for 2,000 years, which is the setup for the "Roman suit" scenario. Obviously, anyone living through all those periods would be sensible about placing the wealth store, and move it around as necessary. There are several family fortunes that are hundreds of years old now; it's obviously possible.
You touch, though, on the main difference of opinion on these issues. There are those who are so risk averse that to them, the major purpose of 'money' is to be a risk-free store of wealth, i.e. to "conserve wealth" through thick and thin. To the extent there are few such people, and they do it to themselves and leave everyone else alone, I suppose there is no harm in it. As policy for everyone, however, it would create a society with zero economic growth and zero economic mobility, such as we saw throughout the middle ages. All owners of wealth would be hoarding it in unproducive lumps of metal, instead of using it to produce new wealth by investing in roads or factories or something useful.
When we have a continuum of such people, from the fanatically risk averse to the wildest risk takers, economic growth is maximized toward the risk-taking end, not at the hoarding end. So as social policy for everyone, hoarding sucks.