What's the big deal about rates?

Quote from Froglet:

I'm curious where and what I can do to at least study duration gap, asset/liability models and simple concepts before actually just jumping on the revolution ship.

I am sure there is more than what meets the eye and I think I want to understand this to help myself grasp the situation at hand. Say a bank has various maturing liabilities (Deposits), 1 month, 6 month, 1 year, 5 year, x year) CDs, now how would you guage risk when you match that w/ 15, 30 year fixed rate mtges?

I want to read about that, but google hasn't really shown me results, and often throw me complex formulas! lolz
More...

Part of this is dealt with by the central bank. If there is an issue when the bank does not have enough money to cover withdrawals it borrows from other banks or the central bank. The central bank is the lender of last resort. This is what the central bank was originally there for, to cover the shortfalls in depositors withdrawals and the income from debt repayments.

The money supply aspect of the central banking is a secondary action of the bank. If you want to read a book that explains the central bank mechanism that resolves this I recommend Central Banking in a Free Society.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook450pdf.pdf

Banking has changed a lot the credit derivate market enabled cheaper rates due to the risk being held by the purchaser of the products. The way they were bundled up was also an attempt to lower risk. Although it did not work in my opinion. When people stopped buying these products the ability to offer lending at the lower rates finished. The risk element is now more important than before the credit crunch in 07/08.

The market is as reliant on debt demand as it is debt supply. The concept that flushing the market with money will lead to more lending is no longer viable due to the high levels of debt making repayment less likely. The banking crisis is insolvency rather than liquidity.

Has that helped?
 
Quote from Froglet:

I always hear the TV guys yack about 10 year, 30 year treasury rates, about it being at historic lows. What does this really mean?
.
More...

Are you sure they were talking about rates and not yields?
 
Quote from Froglet:

Having gone through S&L, why don't banks 'learn' from it and strategize around it?
More...

They have done exactly this. Banks, in the US anyways, know that the gov't will bail them out if they overextend themselves. Extensive lobbying, and the revolving door between industry and regulators is exactly how they strategized.

The S&L guys didn't do enough, they tried to use shortcuts. Remember the Keating Five? Now banks bake their strategy in from the start, using PACs, stock options, knocking the teeth out of regulations and regulators.

I'm not being cynical; we just saw this happen to the tune of trillions of dollars.
 
Quote from morganist:

Part of this is dealt with by the central bank. If there is an issue when the bank does not have enough money to cover withdrawals it borrows from other banks or the central bank. The central bank is the lender of last resort. This is what the central bank was originally there for, to cover the shortfalls in depositors withdrawals and the income from debt repayments.

The money supply aspect of the central banking is a secondary action of the bank. If you want to read a book that explains the central bank mechanism that resolves this I recommend Central Banking in a Free Society.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook450pdf.pdf

Banking has changed a lot the credit derivate market enabled cheaper rates due to the risk being held by the purchaser of the products. The way they were bundled up was also an attempt to lower risk. Although it did not work in my opinion. When people stopped buying these products the ability to offer lending at the lower rates finished. The risk element is now more important than before the credit crunch in 07/08.

The market is as reliant on debt demand as it is debt supply. The concept that flushing the market with money will lead to more lending is no longer viable due to the high levels of debt making repayment less likely. The banking crisis is insolvency rather than liquidity.

Has that helped?
More...
I'm going to read that. Looks like a very good read. Thanks.

I wanted to understand the regional bank's POV, where they are regulated by charters and have models diff't from the big inv/com banks. What is their strategy w/ this low rate enviornment and dead demand on overly inflated real estate assets?
 
Quote from Froglet:

I'm going to read that. Looks like a very good read. Thanks.

I wanted to understand the regional bank's POV, where they are regulated by charters and have models diff't from the big inv/com banks. What is their strategy w/ this low rate enviornment and dead demand on overly inflated real estate assets?
More...

The sad reality is that I don't think they have a strategy. The lendning market has been put on its head by the credit crunch. The macroeconomic mechanism and lending mechanism no longer work how they used to.

I genuinely think there is no real direction just anarchy and no direction.
 
Quote from Kazak_Trader:

As low as the rates are, it still isn't gonna help this moribund economy.
More...

I don't think low interest rates are the answer they are what created this to start with.
 
When I read about BAC cutting jobs, UBS restructuring, then I realize this mess has many more legs on it. Still the banking industry needs to function.

If anyone knows about asset/liability or interest rate risk analysis, or can point me further into technical reading, please do.

Thanks
 
Regarding this THREAD NOW. How does OPERATION TWIST affect REGIONAL/SAVINGS&LOANS THRIFTS?

IF their sole profitability rests solely on mortgages loans in the community, does it mean, more regional banks will go bust?

BUMP!
 
Quote from Froglet:

They are paying for the deposits and are forced to lock in rates at HISTORIC lows!
More...

That's what the secondary market is for. It's not the banks that are locked in at that rate, it's (to a disturbing large extent) Fannie/Freddie who are on the hook.

Which means taxpayers are the ones on the hook.

For their own mortgages.

Which means all they've done is shifted time-shifted future projected earnings into the present.

This circle of invirtuosity will be broken, as it is fundamentally unsustainable. The only question is if voters are smart enough to take their hand out of the cookie jar, or if the jeep has to go over the cliff before voters have their "oh shit" moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top