How long the bank "could have" gone on we don't know-but we do know it was highly likely to fail at some point.
Like I said, you're basically bashing the guy for letting customers know factual information about the bank's condition.
What kind of business is it where only the customer's complete ignorance as to your financial condition allows you to keep on going? And how is it fair to keep their money in a situation where you know that if they were aware of how bad your management had been, they would be lining up in the streets to get their money back?
I guess I tend to support more honesty and transparency, even if it means some badly managed businesses will fail today instead of three months from now.
C'mon, shootinstudent. You know better than that. You know IndyMac's poor situation was already public knowledge. Facts didn't kill IndyMac. The run caused by Senator Schumer's attacks did that. He didn't help the bank, its customers, or the country at large. All he did was flex his political muscle and destroy a bank.
You cannot deny that Chucky Schumer forced the bank to close sooner than it otherwise would have. You cannot deny Schumer eliminated any possibility for a positive resolution for this bank.
And here's a newsflash for you: A sufficiently large run will make any bank fail, regardless of how weak or strong it is. Do you want Senators to try to start a run on your bank? I don't. I don't think it's a Senators job or proper place to destroy other peoples' businesses, savings, or investments.