Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › TARP Repayments
- This topic has 224 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
jeff303.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM #494309December 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM #493476
bubba99
ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
December 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM #493636ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
December 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM #494024ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
December 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM #494111ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
December 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM #494349ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
December 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM #493486davelj
Participant[quote=bubba99]But because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”[/quote]
OK, then explain to me why industry profitability in 2009 was the lowest in 17 years. This should be interesting…
December 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM #493646Participant[quote=bubba99]But because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”[/quote]
OK, then explain to me why industry profitability in 2009 was the lowest in 17 years. This should be interesting…
December 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM #494034Participant[quote=bubba99]But because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”[/quote]
OK, then explain to me why industry profitability in 2009 was the lowest in 17 years. This should be interesting…
December 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM #494121Participant[quote=bubba99]But because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”[/quote]
OK, then explain to me why industry profitability in 2009 was the lowest in 17 years. This should be interesting…
December 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM #494359Participant[quote=bubba99]But because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”[/quote]
OK, then explain to me why industry profitability in 2009 was the lowest in 17 years. This should be interesting…
December 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM #493491Participant[quote=ucodegen]
To use an example, lets say that F&F charge off 10% of their portfolio (which would be a big number). Further, let’s say the average yield on the remaining 90% of their book is 5.5% and their funding costs (now borrowing at govt rates) are 2.5%.
I think your estimate of borrowing costs for FRE/FNM are almost double what they currently are. Is some of that for long term borrowing that has not yet rolled over?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN077795720091207?rpc=44%5B/quote%5D
If you match fund the portfolio with a mix of 5-7 year treasuries, you’ll come out at around 2.6% – I just rounded it off to 2.5%. I’m lazy that way.
December 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM #493651Participant[quote=ucodegen]
To use an example, lets say that F&F charge off 10% of their portfolio (which would be a big number). Further, let’s say the average yield on the remaining 90% of their book is 5.5% and their funding costs (now borrowing at govt rates) are 2.5%.
I think your estimate of borrowing costs for FRE/FNM are almost double what they currently are. Is some of that for long term borrowing that has not yet rolled over?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN077795720091207?rpc=44%5B/quote%5D
If you match fund the portfolio with a mix of 5-7 year treasuries, you’ll come out at around 2.6% – I just rounded it off to 2.5%. I’m lazy that way.
December 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM #494039Participant[quote=ucodegen]
To use an example, lets say that F&F charge off 10% of their portfolio (which would be a big number). Further, let’s say the average yield on the remaining 90% of their book is 5.5% and their funding costs (now borrowing at govt rates) are 2.5%.
I think your estimate of borrowing costs for FRE/FNM are almost double what they currently are. Is some of that for long term borrowing that has not yet rolled over?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN077795720091207?rpc=44%5B/quote%5D
If you match fund the portfolio with a mix of 5-7 year treasuries, you’ll come out at around 2.6% – I just rounded it off to 2.5%. I’m lazy that way.
December 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM #494126Participant[quote=ucodegen]
To use an example, lets say that F&F charge off 10% of their portfolio (which would be a big number). Further, let’s say the average yield on the remaining 90% of their book is 5.5% and their funding costs (now borrowing at govt rates) are 2.5%.
I think your estimate of borrowing costs for FRE/FNM are almost double what they currently are. Is some of that for long term borrowing that has not yet rolled over?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN077795720091207?rpc=44%5B/quote%5D
If you match fund the portfolio with a mix of 5-7 year treasuries, you’ll come out at around 2.6% – I just rounded it off to 2.5%. I’m lazy that way.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.