Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Australia’s banks take a risky path, holding back on rate cutsFrom Webdiarist Alan Thornhill’s Private Briefing website with many thanks.
Their argument, that this is necessary, because they now face higher costs raising the money they lend, is not convincing. Even the usually mild-mannered Treasurer, Wayne Swan, says he has seen little evidence of that. And an independent expert supports him. Sean Cornelius, of Infochoice, told the ABC radio program PM last night, that in Novenber 2007, the average variable home loan interest rate charged by Now, though average margin that banks charge has blown out by amost 1 percentage point, Mr Cornelius said. The big four banks, effectively, operate as a government protected banking cartel. That has its advantages. Mr Swan has clearly lost patience with So severely, in fact, that he told That’s not parliamentary language. But it will resonate with the public. “They (the banks) have to justify their position in the court of public opinion,” Mr Swan added. There has been little sign, so far, though that the banks will step forward, either singly or together, to explain themselves clearly to the public. In present circumstances, keeping quiet, as the banks have been doing, is not necessarily a good idea. The government is arguing, very strongly, that it is doing all it can, to help Australians cope, as the global economic crisis hits the nationnal economy. It is saying, too, that the banks should be playing their part, in that national effort. This is powerful talk. So if the banks do, in fact, have a good case for holding back, on the benefits of the latest rate cut, they would be wise to state it, very clearly. So far, they are not doing so. And no business, no matter how big or how dominant, can afford to ignore public opinion.
[ category: ]
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
The way to really kick the banks up the bum would be to ...
With regard to the second point, that's what Abraham Lincoln did successfully during the Civil War and that's what US author Ellen Brown says Barack Obama should do today. See Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy - An Open Letter to President Obama published on Global Research, which is republished here.
Which bank?
Now, James Sinnamon, what might one call that new People's Bank?
Ah, erm, whaddabout something like the Commonwealth Bank? (Provided, of course, that they were at least as smart as the others at arranging settlements of purchased and sold properties. I still wake up with nightmares from the 1980's.....)
Banks and low interest rates
To obtain deposits, banks must attract funds through deposit rates, which normally means lower than the RBA rate. The public may not find these deposit rate attractive. So the banks, if they are lending, and that is no longer a given, must source funds from somewhere. Foreign capital, which still exists at the moment, may be unwary and may also find the rate unattractive, so what the banks say may have some truth. But they are supposed to be able to borrow some funds from the RBA. Clearly, the RBA can no longer supply these funds as they are meant to be short term. If the RBA could, then there would be no need to pay high rates to suppliers of capital.
What am I missing?
Are the banks lying, looking for a fine or legislative action, or are the RBA lower rates already ineffective? Keeping the rates higher than the present will ensure enough funds to lend, but will also solve the malinvestments quicker. Do not count on further RBA cuts!
The banks are too profitable, but that increases their credit worthiness and in a few months we may be needful as the depression is only just gathering momentum. There is going to be a worse crash soon in global credit as the last international bubbles are popped.
Free movement
About a year ago, the government was going to make the movement of home loans between banks easier and cheaper. What happened to that? It's the economists answer to the problem.