Almost every branch of a large regional or national bank generally holds two or three days of transactions - usually sub $500k in most cases, and in smaller branches or local banks, sub-50k. Very often, branches try to keep a minimal amount of cash on hand to help prevent huge losses in the event of a robbery or catastrophic event, like a fire or flood. The teller's cash drawers often hold less than a grand or two.
Almost all of our money is computerized figures anymore held at heavily-guarded central depository banks. You could rob a bank, and probably make less cash than if you robbed a busy liquor store or diner. Or, sold your supple bod on the streets tonight, you POA. - RB --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > someone else mentioned this when I related the story. I thought FDIC > money was our tax dollars at work. But apparently banks have to have > like $500 million in reserves in order to be FDIC insured? Still I'm > sure the banks pass the cost onto the customer. The banks can't have > just tons of extra money lying around for potential robbers' > benefit. Heck I could jus go rob a bank, no one's money is in danger > so what difference does it make? > > --- In [email protected], "David Patch" <patch@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I said customers have a right to know if their money is safe > > > and also that they are safe, and also if they aren't already > customers > > > they have a right to the information to determine if they want to > have > > > an account there. > > > > Bank robberies don't pose any particular threat to the security of > > one's account; that's part of what the FDIC is for, isn't it? If a > > particular branch were getting hit often, I might be concerned about > > my personal safety visiting that branch, but I'm not sure I'd rely > on > > the bank to provide that information. > > >
