[brookst]

Nothing in the world “prevents insolvency”.

But different investment strategies present different risks. For a bank with a high correlation between deposits and low interest rates, having more investments with strong alpha to low interest rates presents more risk.

So, 28% is less risky than 56%, and Wells Fargo’s depositors have very different profiles than SVB, and WF is subject to the Fed’s liquidity rules that SVB was not.

So, while there is no such thing as risk-free anything, they are such totally different animals that the only reason to act like WF is lying / making PR noises not based in reality is the underwhelming observation that they both have “bank” in their name.

It’s a very low quality, knee-jerk, low-effort comment. That’s all.

(I really dislike WF so if the new HN ethos is to make wild unfounded claims just because we don’t like a company, I guess I could get on the bandwagon.)

[SilasX]

I would say your comment is the low quality one, when the thread just sketched out[1] why WF’s “safe” level ought to be similarly fatal, and you’re just restating the obvious with a lecture about how 28% is safer than 56%, which was never in dispute. And for the kicker, you threw in an aside, which I hope is a joke, that we should say false things just because we don’t like the target.

[1] Yes, my comment wasn’t explicit, but if you put in some effort and read the context or a sibling comment, you’ll see the justification.