- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why are banks hoarding so much $$$?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:31 pm
This is a spin-off of the June 18 thread, so help me out here.
Acording to this chart, the banks(Depository Institutions), are sittin on huge amounts of reserves, around $1.6 Trillion while 'required reserves' are about $100 billion.
Thats about 2/3s of M1, which is around $2.8 Trillion. LINK
LINK
What going on here?
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think the banks are bracing for a big drop or run.
Help me out here.
Acording to this chart, the banks(Depository Institutions), are sittin on huge amounts of reserves, around $1.6 Trillion while 'required reserves' are about $100 billion.
Thats about 2/3s of M1, which is around $2.8 Trillion. LINK
LINK
What going on here?
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think the banks are bracing for a big drop or run.
Help me out here.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:37 pm to Reubaltaich
I can't answer your question, but I can factually tell you this, they are levered up to their ears again. They're just better positioned to be levered.
CDS are at higher level than pre crisis, and I'm not sure the issuers were ever required to properly reserve for this as they would if they just called some of these what they are, which is insurance. I'm not talking about the CDS that trade, I'm talking about the ones originated to protect credit.
The one friggin thing that could have freed up credit when it was frozen, and really needed to be regulated, and they missed it. Instead going in a thousand directions that are now being unwound, and will have consequences in my estimation. On small guys like us, not them.
It's probably a good thing they have cash.
CDS are at higher level than pre crisis, and I'm not sure the issuers were ever required to properly reserve for this as they would if they just called some of these what they are, which is insurance. I'm not talking about the CDS that trade, I'm talking about the ones originated to protect credit.
The one friggin thing that could have freed up credit when it was frozen, and really needed to be regulated, and they missed it. Instead going in a thousand directions that are now being unwound, and will have consequences in my estimation. On small guys like us, not them.
It's probably a good thing they have cash.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:45 pm to Reubaltaich
I didn't read your links, but a quick guess would be that capital requirements for large banks are increasing exponentially. By 2019 Basel 3 will be fully in place. They have a few years to ramp up, but by 2019 their capital levels are going to have to be pretty high. I forget exactly what the numbers are (been a couple of years), but I think a mega bank could be required to hold up to 13% total capital. They're likely just building up those reserves.
Of course, there have been immense operational losses in the industry over the past few years that drives everyone's AMA capital up in one way or another.
Of course, there have been immense operational losses in the industry over the past few years that drives everyone's AMA capital up in one way or another.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:52 pm to Reubaltaich
The stress tests the Fed has been performing on the big banks gives the banks an incentive to keep much higher deposits on reserve with the Federal Reserve. The stress tests' capital ratios are computed on 'risk adjusted assets' so higher risk assets, such as loans, require more capital to absorb any potential losses.
Deposits with the Fed are risk weighted at zero % so the banks don't have to set aside capital for those assets making it easier for them to meet the Fed's higher capital ratios and also helps them pass the stress tests the Fed puts them through.
Deposits with the Fed are risk weighted at zero % so the banks don't have to set aside capital for those assets making it easier for them to meet the Fed's higher capital ratios and also helps them pass the stress tests the Fed puts them through.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 7:54 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
not sure the issuers were ever required to properly reserve for this as they would if they just called some of these what they are, which is insurance
Do you mind explaining your statement again.... Especially the quoted part.....
You talking FDIC insurance? ......
Im not trolling. .. just not understanding
Posted on 6/19/14 at 8:13 pm to Mr.Perfect
A credit default swap is an instrument that can be used to insure a bank's loan portfolio. This is one use, they are also traded like a future's contract.
When it all went down, AIG, the largest issuer could pay on the polices they issued. The CDS are regulated as a financial instrument, not an insurance policy.
This is an oversimplification. The CDS serve a very useful purpose, but in my opinion, need to be regulated and the issuers required to reserve for losses.
When it all went down, AIG, the largest issuer could pay on the polices they issued. The CDS are regulated as a financial instrument, not an insurance policy.
This is an oversimplification. The CDS serve a very useful purpose, but in my opinion, need to be regulated and the issuers required to reserve for losses.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 8:15 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
When it all went down, AIG, the largest issuer could pay on the polices they issued.
You might need to insert the word "not" between "could" and "pay."
Posted on 6/19/14 at 8:22 pm to LSURussian
Could not pay. Correct. They actually could have paid, but that's another argument not for tonight. I guess in the end, through some intervention they actually did pay. Kind of.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 10:18 pm to Reubaltaich
Short Answer: Banks are afraid to lend / there is an incentive to NOT lend.
Long Answer: This is due to four reasons.
1) They can park money at the fed window, get a minute amount of interest on that money - but that minute amount of interest is enough to pay some of their interest obligations to deposit accounts - and it is completely risk free.
2) The stress tests / regulators are strongly encouraging to reserve much more than what is traditionally required. The stress tests are overboard. Some of the conditions are, while possible, so far from likely as to basically render them impossible. It would be like the insurance industry running a test to show what would happen if a Katrina-sized hurricane hit somewhere on the US coast every three days for a month. Yeah, most of the insurance industry would collapse. Yeah, that's not likely to occur.
3) Somewhat related to #1, because banks have such low payout requirements, they don't need to take much risk with deposits. They can make strategic loans to very high credit profiles and make enough money to carry the day.
4) Banks are nervous about real estate. Bubbles are forming in some markets. There are lots of economic questions - while unemployment is low, underemployment is high, student loan balances are sky high, and you have all the federal debt/deficit concerns.
Want evidence of a lending environment that is nervous? Look at FHA loans. The insurance on these things is paid by the borrower, and fully protects the lender. If the loan goes bad, the bank is fully reimbursed. There is almost NO RISK on these loans. FHA requires only a credit score of 580 for their basic product. Yet, good luck finding a bank that will lend at 580. Most want 640. Why? Because the feds told the banks that if the banks screw up the underwriting, then the banks will have to eat the loan. If the banks write loans at 580, there is no margin for error. Because the banks have been threatened by the feds, they are giving themselves large room for error. Thus, 640.
Long Answer: This is due to four reasons.
1) They can park money at the fed window, get a minute amount of interest on that money - but that minute amount of interest is enough to pay some of their interest obligations to deposit accounts - and it is completely risk free.
2) The stress tests / regulators are strongly encouraging to reserve much more than what is traditionally required. The stress tests are overboard. Some of the conditions are, while possible, so far from likely as to basically render them impossible. It would be like the insurance industry running a test to show what would happen if a Katrina-sized hurricane hit somewhere on the US coast every three days for a month. Yeah, most of the insurance industry would collapse. Yeah, that's not likely to occur.
3) Somewhat related to #1, because banks have such low payout requirements, they don't need to take much risk with deposits. They can make strategic loans to very high credit profiles and make enough money to carry the day.
4) Banks are nervous about real estate. Bubbles are forming in some markets. There are lots of economic questions - while unemployment is low, underemployment is high, student loan balances are sky high, and you have all the federal debt/deficit concerns.
Want evidence of a lending environment that is nervous? Look at FHA loans. The insurance on these things is paid by the borrower, and fully protects the lender. If the loan goes bad, the bank is fully reimbursed. There is almost NO RISK on these loans. FHA requires only a credit score of 580 for their basic product. Yet, good luck finding a bank that will lend at 580. Most want 640. Why? Because the feds told the banks that if the banks screw up the underwriting, then the banks will have to eat the loan. If the banks write loans at 580, there is no margin for error. Because the banks have been threatened by the feds, they are giving themselves large room for error. Thus, 640.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 12:08 am to LSURussian
Russian, is it true that the Fed Reserve doesn't "stress test" for a rise in interest rates?
I forgot where I heard that, but isn't that a pretty important thing to test for?
I forgot where I heard that, but isn't that a pretty important thing to test for?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:55 am to Reubaltaich
quote:
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think the banks are bracing for a big drop or run.
No conspiracy, just a carefully managed recovery from the near disaster of 2008-09.
The REAL monetary expansion takes place in the banks. If they loaned all that money out, what do you think would happen to inflation?
My only gripe with the program is that (in general) the average Joe who employs people is not getting the loans. FED is going to have to make some changes because the inequalities are becoming blatant and will eventually create social unrest if left unchecked.
This country cannot have a "Let them eat cake" situation. More and more of the "1%" are starting to understand that and are writing about it.
We are witnessing financial history, and books will be written, but it may be decades before we get the real story.
Our central bank is the greatest in the world and their actions kept the worldwide economy from collapsing. There is always talk about the dollar losing reserve status, but at this point in time, what other central bank could have navigated such troubled waters?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 11:10 am to stuntman
quote:I don't know for sure but I'd be really surprised if that were the case.
Russian, is it true that the Fed Reserve doesn't "stress test" for a rise in interest rates?
I know even back in the mid-90's before I got out of banking my bank had to do "shock" modeling tests of its balance sheet and income statement based on dramatic changes (rise and/or fall) in interest rates.
That was a requirement of the OCC's bank examiners and we had to show them our test results.
So to think the Fed's stress tests don't include interest rate change scenarios isn't logical, IMO.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 12:13 pm to Reubaltaich
From what I've read, the policy of giving interest on reserve deposits has blunted the Fed's attempts at putting cash on the streets so to speak (small-medium business lending).
The banks can survive with significantly less risk.
The banks can survive with significantly less risk.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 6:14 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
can't answer your question, but I can factually tell you this, they are levered up to their ears again.
I think you need to go back and review the difference between factually and figuratively.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 8:50 am to Reubaltaich
I think a contributing factor is the lack of economic growth. Businesses are not expanding. Which means they are not borrowing. Which means banks aren't lending.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News