Excuse me if this sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is "behavioral finance issues" another way to say that the people placed in charge of the large pile of cash can't be trusted with it? Are you saying the solution to that is to just not to hold any cash?
We are in no danger of our money being taken away by the government. I feel that these kinds of articles are just begging for attention.
Also, if you see a problem with the government and how much of your money that they keep, change it. I know it's not a simple process, but it's possible.
They're worried that if they charged $400bil and the government paid with a 400 billion dollar bill, someone could just pocket it. This way, they'd have to make change for $1 billion from the till.
I suppose it does make some sense if we are talking about 'dirty' money trying to safeguard their wealth from some form of confiscation. So they don't care about the price tag, they just want to safeguard as much of their wealth in a jurisdiction with strong property rights. They are happy if they don't lose more than 90%.
Still, it seems very irrational and thus unsustainable.
Exactly. They would lose 5 days' interest on the money, and more importantly, whatever money they alloted to this scheme would be exhausted quickly. Then they wouldn't be able to keep doing this.
reply