The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But the central bank is paying them a negative real interest rate on their excess reserves, and demanding a negative real interest rate on their rediscounts.
how does this square with 1.5% ? Can you point me to some indication that the central banks are paying at such a rate? What I see for both US Fed and ECB is significantly less.
It also pays 0.25% for excess reserves. This was 0.75% when the repo rate was 1.5% because the ECB likes cutesy rules of thumb like constant-width bands around its repo rate. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
so when you wrote But the central bank is paying them a negative real interest rate on their excess reserves, and demanding a negative real interest rate on their rediscounts. how does this square with 1.5%
Reading the posts you quote tends to be good for your argument.
The policy rate is [inflation] - [("cyclical") unemployment] for central banks operating under a Taylor/Mankiw Rule (which includes the Fed and the ECBuBa). Which averages to the inflation target. So most of the time the policy rate will be in excess of 1.5 % nominal.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Ok.
So their business model is to borrow from depositors and pay them 1% and then deposit that with the reserve bank at below inflation (at 1.5% although they really only get 0.25%). So they net 0.5% which means they might as well set the money on fire.
Wait, what?
In what fictional alternative universe does it not make sense for a bank to get paid 50 BP of its customers' money per year?
You lend me a million. I put the million with the CB. The CB pays me 500 more than I pay you. Who cares if it's below inflation? The inflation eats the customers' money, not the spread (OK, technically it does eat the spread, but it eats less than half a basis point in this case).
When you're in at the zero bound, it means the central bank stops paying you to handle deposits.
This does not in any way, shape or form make deposits more necessary for lending. At all. Really, riddle me this: How the fuck does being able to borrow at nearly 0 % from the CB against toilet paper collateral make deposits in any way relevant to the lending operations of the banks?
Were the government to run a zero interest rate policy -which it could and, in my opinion, should- taking deposits would become a loss-leader for other activities (or simply go away) unless deposit handling were explicitly rather than implicitly subsidised.
by gmoke - May 16
by gmoke - May 6
by rifek - May 4 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 26 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 20 1 comment
by rifek - Apr 18
by rifek - Apr 17 2 comments
by Oui - May 17
by Oui - May 16
by Oui - May 14
by Oui - May 13
by Oui - May 82 comments
by rifek - May 43 comments
by Oui - May 42 comments
by Oui - May 4
by Oui - May 1
by Oui - Apr 27
by gmoke - Apr 261 comment
by Oui - Apr 25
by Oui - Apr 23
by Oui - Apr 22
by gmoke - Apr 201 comment
by Oui - Apr 204 comments