Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I must be dumb indeed, because here's what I understand Jake to be saying:

  1. the banks borrow from customers at 4%
  2. the banks deposit that money in the central bank at nearly zero interest.

That would make no sense.

At a minimum they can park this cash as central bank reserves making a measly 0.25%. And, as assets, central bank reserves and cash don't count as risk weighted assets and therefore don't count in capital adequacy requirements

So they put some of it in the central bank, which increases their cash asset base which allows them to lend and buy more profitable assets - in theory. But suddenly, the deposit taking doesn't seem like a service business, it seems like a vital part of bank capital management. In order to lend, they must have some cash reserves. And one big source of cash reserves is - deposits!

To me you are taking a true observation: that with access to central bank reserves and fancy accounting, bank lending is not constrained to be a fraction of deposits, and then extending it over the cliff as an argument that deposits don't have any effect on bank lending capability - something you contradict in the quoted sentence above.

by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:21:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, before the Global Financial Clusterfuck it was a perfectly viable banking model to fund your lending by borrowing in the interbank market instead of and in preference to deposit-taking.

Then the interbank maket seized and it took with it Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:25:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with that, sort of, before the crisis one would read all sorts of snotty comments about the business of retail banking which was so passe and boring. BUT before the boom deposits were the prized and since the bust, suddenly all those juicy deposits look valuable again.  They are NOT a service business but a much sought after source of cash which banks obtain at a low rate because of the government subsidy in form of the guarantee. My argument is that there is little public gain in the resulting complex system and guaranteed deposits could simply be provided for by a postal bank or flexible treasury bond system.
by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your conclusion - that the depository function could be handled by a postal bank, or direct participation by the CB - is true.

Everything leading up to it is false, and it won't have the effect on the financial system you think it will. But it's still a good idea for other reasons.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 12:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the reason deposits are wanted now - and even more so a year or so ago - is that we are living through a continous financial crisis.

US embassy cables: Mervyn King says in March 2008 bailout fund needed | Business | guardian.co.uk

The problem is now not liquidity in the system but rather a question of systemic solvency, Bank of England (BOE) Governor Mervyn King said at a lunch meeting with Treasury Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt and Ambassador Tuttle. King said there are two imperatives. First to find ways for banks to avoid the stigma of selling unwanted paper at distressed prices or going to a central bank for assistance.

I understand this to mean that banking as a whole since 2008 is in permanent crisis. This causing stuff like temporarily panics for deposits to short-term meet requirements that would otherwise send them into receivership or to government help centrals.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 02:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the reason deposits are wanted now - and even more so a year or so ago - is that we are living through a continous financial crisis.

We're in a liquidity crisis and banks want to be in an all-cash asset position.

This is what the ECB's LTRO is about: allowing banks to get into an all-cash position for up to 3 years to weather the coming storm. Draghi to banks: winter is coming and it's going to last at least a year.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 04:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must be dumb indeed, because here's what I understand Jake to be saying:

  • the banks borrow from customers at 4%
  • the banks deposit that money in the central bank at nearly zero interest.

That would make no sense.

If you can find a bank that'll pay you 4 % on a demand deposit, you should run away very fast because they're most likely desperately papering over their insolvency.

But suddenly, the deposit taking doesn't seem like a service business, it seems like a vital part of bank capital management.

"Large" != "vital."

In order to lend, they must have some cash reserves. And one big source of cash reserves is - deposits!

Not so.

Having extended a loan, they must obtain some cash reserves. They can always do this (so long as they are solvent and the central bank defends a policy rate) by rediscounting the loan with the central bank.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In order to lend, they must have some cash reserves. And one big source of cash reserves is - deposits!
Not so.

Having extended a loan, they must obtain some cash reserves. They can always do this (so long as they are solvent and the central bank defends a policy rate) by rediscounting the loan with the central bank.

ECB: 8 December 2011 - ECB announces measures to support bank lending and money market activity
The NCBs are allowed, as a temporary solution, to accept as collateral for Eurosystem credit operations additional performing credit claims that satisfy specific eligibility criteria. The responsibility entailed in the acceptance of such credit claims will be borne by the NCB authorising their use. Details of the criteria for the use of credit claims will be announced in due course.


There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's very easy to find a bank offering 4% on short fixed term deposits - I simply look up the article migeru linked to 3 comments above.
by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not any more. But it was possible a year ago.

And, again, your point is?

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would make no sense.

I have called it insane. The Spanish Central Bank called it self-defeating and after a year of asking pretty please it issued a directive banning the practice.

So, your point is?

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So what was the bank motivation? Just crazy?
by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:52:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interbank lending dried up and borrowing from the Central Bank carried a stigma. So the banks started a price war. You are familiar with the concept of a price war, and why it's not necessarily a good thing for firms to engage in it, are you not?
In the short term, price wars are good for consumers, who can take advantage of lower prices. Often they are not good for the companies involved. The lower prices reduce profit margins and can threaten their survival.

In the medium to long term, they can be good for the dominant firms in the industry. Typically, the smaller, more marginal, firms cannot compete and must close. The remaining firms absorb the market share of those that have closed. The real losers then, are the marginal firms and their investors. In the long term, the consumer may lose too. With fewer firms in the industry, prices tend to increase, sometimes higher than before the price war started.



There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:56:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is what you claimed banks did with deposits

"It holds it as custodian and pays interest on it."

So the motivation for this price war is somewhat elusive. The prestige of being a custodian and paying interest?

I'm more used to looking businesses that try make profits or at least revenue. This concept of borrowing money from depositors as a beneficent service has me befuddled.

by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 12:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having a customer's deposits means the bank becomes involved in all the payments activity of that customer and collects all kinds of service provider fees from it.

Also it brings the customer in the door so they can be sold loans.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 12:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.1

But more importantly, depositors don't ask for collateral. The discount window does. So when your balance sheet is full of shit, you are willing to pay your depositors for the privilege of not being asked questions.

If your balance sheet is not full of shit, however, there is no particular reason to prefer creditors who do not ask questions over ones who do.

- Jake

1A lot of bankers (and, unfortunately, regulators) are witch doctors who target cutesy rules of thumb like "lending/deposit ratio," Taylor rules or "even banks around the rediscount rate." Most of these rules of thumb are bullshit, but pass for plausible under ordinary conditions, because they basically amount to "do the same thing you did yesterday."

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 12:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Project Free-Dumb

by rifek - May 4
3 comments

Growing Food in Hard Times

by gmoke - Apr 20
1 comment

US Rugby

by rifek - Apr 18

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

by rifek - Apr 17
2 comments

Occasional Series