Lawrence Booth2 said:If people actually acted normally, nothing would collapse.
But what does "normal" even mean here?
Does it mean only withdrawing as much cash as I would have if this whole conflict hadn't kicked off?
I’ve got enough tucked away to cover my usual daily ATM limits, sure—
but I’m not planning on a run; honestly, I'm more inclined to let them stabilize the bank than watch the system burn.
Hi everyone,
having worked in banking myself, I want to try and clarify things because it's clear people are panicking.
The fear felt by depositors is completely understandable, which is why so many are rushing to grab their money. However, you also have to realize that it's the depositors themselves who create these liquidity crises; no bank can survive a sudden mass withdrawal without intervention from the owners or the Federal Reserve.
Both the bank and the Federal Reserve should have communicated this much more clearly to the entire country.
Since the owner has stepped away, the Federal Reserve is stepping in to fix the liquidity issues. From what I understand, JPMorgan Chase has a solid asset base consisting of receivables that will eventually be collected, they just won't hit all at once since loans don't mature as fast as people demand their deposits.
The issue might affect those who need cash immediately, but I wouldn't worry about whether everyone gets paid back.
You have to remember that banking is a highly regulated industry, and beyond the quality loans mentioned in the latest report, there is a twenty percent reserve held at the Federal Reserve, which is plenty of coverage. Problems only arise when a bank's business model fails and they can't collect on bad loans, which isn't the case here.
The bottom line is that this isn't a failure of management, so I'm not worried that people won't get their money.
Hang in there.