Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"Deposits are not "low cost". Especially not now in a "liquidity trap". "
by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 12:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes.

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?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 01:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you clarify for me whether in your understanding  in the normal course of events, deposits are sources of profit for banks or just a tiresome service provided to lure borrowers into the shop?
by rootless2 on Wed Feb 29th, 2012 at 04:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the ordinary course of events, taking deposits makes the bank money, because the government - by way of the central bank - subsidises the handling of deposits through maintaining a non-zero interbank rate.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Mar 1st, 2012 at 02:41:16 AM 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