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.
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).
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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 - Aug 25
by gmoke - Aug 19
by Oui - Sep 6
by Oui - Sep 4
by Oui - Sep 1
by Oui - Aug 31
by Oui - Aug 254 comments
by Oui - Aug 23
by Oui - Aug 21
by Oui - Aug 20
by Oui - Aug 18
by Oui - Aug 16
by Oui - Aug 11
by Oui - Aug 10