Banks Warn Fed They May Have To Start Charging Dep

[GURPS]

Banks Warn Fed They May Have To Start Charging Depositors

If cutting IOER was as much of an easing move as the Fed believes, banks should be delighted - after all, according to the Fed's guidelines it would mean that the return on their investments (recall that all US banks slowly but surely became glorified, TBTF prop trading hedge funds since Glass Steagall was repealed, and why the Volcker Rule implementation is virtually guaranteed to never happen) would increase. And yet, they are not:

• Executives at two of the top five US banks said a cut in the 0.25 per cent rate of interest on the $2.4tn in reserves they hold at the Fed would lead them to pass on the cost to depositors.
• Banks say they may have to charge because taking in deposits is not free: they have to pay premiums of a few basis points to a US government insurance programme.
• “Right now you can at least break even from a revenue perspective,” said one executive, adding that a rate cut by the Fed “would turn it into negative revenue – banks would be disincentivised to take deposits and potentially charge for them”.
• Other bankers said that a move to negative rates would not only trim margins but could backfire for banks and the system as a whole, as it would incentivise treasury managers to find higher-yielding, riskier assets.
• “It’s not as if we are suddenly going to start lending to [small and medium-sized enterprises],” said one. “There really isn’t the level of demand, so the danger is that banks are pushed into riskier assets to find yield.”

All of the above is BS: lending has never been a concern for the Fed because if it was, then one could scrap QE right now as an absolute faiure. Recall that as we showed recently, the total amount of loans and leases in commercial US banks has been unchanged since Lehman, with the only rise in deposits coming thanks to the fungible liquidity injected by the Fed.

Originally seen @ US banks warn Fed interest cut could force them to charge depositors - FT.com

 

[GURPS]

and for tommyboy poo poo'n Zero Hedge ... you check the story @ FT

 

[GURPS]

if banks are going to charge us to hold onto our money,

Cash in the Mattress anyone ?

 

[tommyjo]

and for tommyboy poo poo'n Zero Hedge ... you check the story @ FT

You continue to show how little you understand.

The basis of the story is correct, where Zerohedge goes off the tracks, as it always does, is when it gets into commentary.

Zerohedge is a joke, anyone who is serious about economics knows Zerohedge is a joke. It is built for people like you, people whose base reaction to eveything is negative. Facts are irrelevant to Zerohedge.

If you cared about the reporting of the facts, you would have displayed the FT article or something from Bloomberg, but no, you use Zerohedge...because it fits your "I hate everything" view of the world.

Here are two distinct problems with your reference article:

First, they whine about banks being in risky assets. They use one and only one example (with zero detail and zero confirmation to back up their claim) to show that banks have used the excess reserves to reach for yield. Yet, in the previous paragraph decry QR as a failure because the banks have left all the reserves on the Fed's balance sheet.

Which is it? Are the banks investing the funds recklessly or are they leaving the reserves at the Fed? Zerohedge won't say, they just want to plant as many negative thoughts into puny brains like yours.

Now let's talk about their idiotic commentary about the total value of all loans outstanding. There was this event that happened in 2008. It was called a financial crisis. There was the collapse of the credit markets.

Do you recall all the foreclosures that happened? That are still happening? Or don't you remember that?

How many hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of loans went bad? Those loans don't exist anymore.

Those loans have been replaced by new, better loans. But you see Zerohedge twists this for the ignorant and those who are unable to think for themselves or those who simply don't understand. Zerohedge will create a chart telling you that loan amounts are the same (which I have not had the time to verify)...what they don't tell you is the make up the loan quality, they ignore all the loans that were lost due to the credit crisis, that had no loans actually been made, there would be far fewer dollar amounts of loans outstanding. Do you follow that? Probably not.

Zerohedge will give you half the story...just like your glorious Fox News and The Blaze.

But you go ahead...keep believing and posting the garbage these sources feed you and I will continue to mock you.

 

[somdwatch]

You continue to show how little you understand.

The basis of the story is correct, where Zerohedge goes off the tracks, as it always does, is when it gets into commentary.

Zerohedge is a joke, anyone who is serious about economics knows Zerohedge is a joke. It is built for people like you, people whose base reaction to eveything is negative. Facts are irrelevant to Zerohedge.

If you cared about the reporting of the facts, you would have displayed the FT article or something from Bloomberg, but no, you use Zerohedge...because it fits your "I hate everything" view of the world.

Here are two distinct problems with your reference article:

First, they whine about banks being in risky assets. They use one and only one example (with zero detail and zero confirmation to back up their claim) to show that banks have used the excess reserves to reach for yield. Yet, in the previous paragraph decry QR as a failure because the banks have left all the reserves on the Fed's balance sheet.

Which is it? Are the banks investing the funds recklessly or are they leaving the reserves at the Fed? Zerohedge won't say, they just want to plant as many negative thoughts into puny brains like yours.

Now let's talk about their idiotic commentary about the total value of all loans outstanding. There was this event that happened in 2008. It was called a financial crisis. There was the collapse of the credit markets.

Do you recall all the foreclosures that happened? That are still happening? Or don't you remember that?

How many hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of loans went bad? Those loans don't exist anymore.

Those loans have been replaced by new, better loans. But you see Zerohedge twists this for the ignorant and those who are unable to think for themselves or those who simply don't understand. Zerohedge will create a chart telling you that loan amounts are the same (which I have not had the time to verify)...what they don't tell you is the make up the loan quality, they ignore all the loans that were lost due to the credit crisis, that had no loans actually been made, there would be far fewer dollar amounts of loans outstanding. Do you follow that? Probably not.

Zerohedge will give you half the story...just like your glorious Fox News and The Blaze.

But you go ahead...keep believing and posting the garbage these sources feed you and I will continue to mock you.

Lets just state a more obvious fact. Banks did their jobs much better when not told by the Fed how to do their business. If we get the government requlations out of banking, everyone wins, except of course the government.

 

[BOP]

You continue to show how little you understand.

The basis of the story is correct, where Zerohedge goes off the tracks, as it always does, is when it gets into commentary.

Zerohedge is a joke, anyone who is serious about economics knows Zerohedge is a joke. It is built for people like you, people whose base reaction to eveything is negative. Facts are irrelevant to Zerohedge.

If you cared about the reporting of the facts, you would have displayed the FT article or something from Bloomberg, but no, you use Zerohedge...because it fits your "I hate everything" view of the world.

Here are two distinct problems with your reference article:

First, they whine about banks being in risky assets. They use one and only one example (with zero detail and zero confirmation to back up their claim) to show that banks have used the excess reserves to reach for yield. Yet, in the previous paragraph decry QR as a failure because the banks have left all the reserves on the Fed's balance sheet.

Which is it? Are the banks investing the funds recklessly or are they leaving the reserves at the Fed? Zerohedge won't say, they just want to plant as many negative thoughts into puny brains like yours.

Now let's talk about their idiotic commentary about the total value of all loans outstanding. There was this event that happened in 2008. It was called a financial crisis. There was the collapse of the credit markets.

Do you recall all the foreclosures that happened? That are still happening? Or don't you remember that?

How many hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of loans went bad? Those loans don't exist anymore.

Those loans have been replaced by new, better loans. But you see Zerohedge twists this for the ignorant and those who are unable to think for themselves or those who simply don't understand. Zerohedge will create a chart telling you that loan amounts are the same (which I have not had the time to verify)...what they don't tell you is the make up the loan quality, they ignore all the loans that were lost due to the credit crisis, that had no loans actually been made, there would be far fewer dollar amounts of loans outstanding. Do you follow that? Probably not.

Zerohedge will give you half the story...just like your glorious Fox News and The Blaze.

But you go ahead...keep believing and posting the garbage these sources feed you and I will continue to mock you.

Oooo...flag on the play!

You mount a fallicious argument based on a fallicious premise, then can't figure out why everyone isn't stunned at your superior intellect.

 

[GURPS]

If you cared about the reporting of the facts, you would have displayed the FT article or something from Bloomberg, but no, you use Zerohedge...because it fits your "I hate everything" view of the world.

actually NO, FT asks you NOT to Quote ANY of their Article ....
but to link instead ...


and of the 4 articles I reviewed in the early MORNING Hours ... they all said the same BASIC Things

Banks MAY move to Negative Interest just to hold OUR Own DAMN Money

 

[abcxyz]

blahblahblahblah...If you cared about the reporting of the facts, you would have displayed the FT article or something from Bloomberg,.blahblahblah

Bloomberg and facts in the same sentence?