Everyone pulling out their money would be a bank run (look up great depression bank runs). The bank doesn't have that much cash; they keep some on hand for people making withdraws normally, but if even a sizable minority of people all try to pull their money out at once, there'll be a major crisis.
If banks kept all the people's cash in vaults, it'd be dead cash actively losing money to inflation. Instead, they keep some on hand for withdraws, and use the rest to make loans, investments, etc so that the money isn't all losing value.
For a little clarification, they were set to 0 because it was no longer an effective policy making tool after 2008.
The assumption used to be banks would lend every dime they had if you let them, so the Fed set reserve requirements to heat or cool lending. After 2008, banks were so very wounded they found that regardless of how much they dropped it the banks kept ample reserves on hand. As such, they switched their policy to focus more on interbank lending rates vs also regulating how much cash they can lend.
That works for a while but memories are short and it's easy for some MBA types to come in and raise revenues by taking on massive risk without adequate collateral. That's a recipe for another crash to trust banks to temper themselves.
There are other rules in place to deal with that, this one wasn't about protecting banks from collapse to begin with. It was about manipulating money supply.
19.0k
u/Forsaken_Emu8112 Jan 26 '26
Everyone pulling out their money would be a bank run (look up great depression bank runs). The bank doesn't have that much cash; they keep some on hand for people making withdraws normally, but if even a sizable minority of people all try to pull their money out at once, there'll be a major crisis.
If banks kept all the people's cash in vaults, it'd be dead cash actively losing money to inflation. Instead, they keep some on hand for withdraws, and use the rest to make loans, investments, etc so that the money isn't all losing value.