Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you factor in 1% profit for the bank, how can a bank provide its investors with any kind of return? If I had $120,000 in the bank and I would be upset if I was only getting a 3% return. How does this work?
Yeah, they pay less than 2%, and lend out at 4.5%. The banks are making a killing right now, and thus they justify massive bonuses for themselves. Of course, the US Taxpayer rescued them last year, but to the bankers that just shows how stupid we sheeple are. Actually, we are not stupid, but how can we stop our congress-people from bailing out their buddies at Goldman Sachs??
Yeah, they pay less than 2%, and lend out at 4.5%. The banks are making a killing right now, and thus they justify massive bonuses for themselves. Of course, the US Taxpayer rescued them last year, but to the bankers that just shows how stupid we sheeple are. Actually, we are not stupid, but how can we stop our congress-people from bailing out their buddies at Goldman Sachs??
2% profit sucks. Especially over 30 years. You can get 5%+ easily in a mutual fund on the stock market.
2% profit sucks. Especially over 30 years. You can get 5%+ easily in a mutual fund on the stock market.
That 2% profit is a constant revenue stream, packaged together with thousands of other 2% revenue streams that are all of similar time frame, grade and asset. 2% x 250,000,000...yeah, I'll take that all day since it's a guaranteed asset. And with the swaps to insure them, in the secondary market you win either way. They perform you get your money in the secondary market when packaged to the street. They don't you get your money from the swaps at 5.5%.
THERE is the reason the market imploded and the crisis occurred.
the debate I remember, said we could go the Swedish route and nationalize the banks
or, we could go the Japanese route, and guarantee them not to fail. "They" said the problem the Japanese faced, was that Japanese banks did not earn their way out of the crisis fast enough, due to a flat yield curve. I guess we wanted to be damn sure we wouldn't have that problem.
I don't know enough about the topic to say whether that's a valid line of thinking or not. It seems to me that if consumers don't have the ability to service debt (like right now), then banks do not lend. If banks do not lend, then we will not have sustained inflation. If we don't have sustained inflation, then in that environment banks are just going to stockpile cash, maybe put it in the stock market or something - but not lend it. Right?
If banks do not lend, then we will not have sustained inflation. If we don't have sustained inflation, then in that environment banks are just going to stockpile cash, maybe put it in the stock market or something - but not lend it. Right?
This is when you fire up the helicopters and start to dump cash across the nation.
Anyhow, the banks can lend money at 4.5% because:
1.) They are borrowing money at rates between 0~2%
2.) They are able to sell the debt to investors (eer...the FED) that will accept that yield.
The spread between what banks borrow at and what they loan money for is fairly constant.
This is when you fire up the helicopters and start to dump cash across the nation.
Anyhow, the banks can lend money at 4.5% because:
1.) They are borrowing money at rates between 0~2%
2.) They are able to sell the debt to investors (eer...the FED) that will accept that yield.
The spread between what banks borrow at and what they loan money for is fairly constant.
My thinking is that whether banks can lend or not is only one piece of the puzzle- right now it is the consumer's ability to take on debt that is the missing link.
My thinking is that whether banks can lend or not is only one piece of the puzzle- right now it is the consumer's ability to take on debt that is the missing link.
My understanding is that the main issue is with small businesses, not with consumers. Small businesses that want to borrow, and can afford to borrow, cannot. And it is from small- and medium-sized businesses that the bulk of job growth would arise.
In my opinion...instead of our government bailing out the banking industry...that perhaps it would have made more sense to provide a bailout to the consumers.
If the consumers had been given the money - then they would have been able to spend it on making purchases (ie: cars, houses, education, etc)...creating an upward chain reaction. Because if the consumers had the money, they would spend...banks would receive loans, etc.
Basically, the opposite of the "trickle down effect". Perhaps I'm just missing information to make me think otherwise. It's great if the banks have the money to lend but it still doesn't help the consumers take on any additional debt...."the missing link" - just like rubber_factory stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubber_factory
My thinking is that whether banks can lend or not is only one piece of the puzzle- right now it is the consumer's ability to take on debt that is the missing link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion...instead of our government bailing out the banking industry...that perhaps it would have made more sense to provide a bailout to the consumers.
