[dehrmann]

> Everyone knows that amounts over $250K were not insured.

This is technically true, but I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money. Depositors losing money in bank runs feels like a 1920's problem.

[JohnFen]

> I think there's a feeling that traditional banks are de-facto safe places to keep money

Where were the financial advisors for these companies, then? A big part of their job is to strip away "feelings" and talk cold, hard facts.

[muzz]

Because 2008 was so long ago? What were the CFOs of these companies doing.

[dehrmann]

I don't think depositors lost money in 2008.

The lessons from 2008 were to look out for risks of an asset class failing and that packaging risky, correlated assets doesn't make them much safer. The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown.

[andrepd]

LOL! Neither "packaging correlated assets doesn't make them magically AAA, so we'll also commit ratings fraud", neither "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts (or simply mismanagement or fraud)" are/were unknowns. These people took risks KNOWINGLY, because they were rewarded handsomely by it. Now and then it rears its ugly face and we're supposed to pay the check? Give me a break.

[hnfong]

I'm struggling to understand how taking the risk of "uninsured money at a bank can be lost in sudden market shifts" can reward one handsomely. Is there some way I can make spectacular gains by depositing money in a mismanaged bank?

[hnfong]

> The lesson here is sudden interest rate increases can cause bank failures. This was a mostly unknown unknown.

What? It's only unknown if all you know about financial crises are from 2008.

A google search on "borrowing short and lending long" gives this in the first page:

http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/banks-borrowing-short-a...

[grugagag]

They were counting the days till the next bonus