from the I'll-take-it! dept.
Banks to Companies: No More Deposits, Please:
U.S. companies are holding on to billions of dollars in cash. Their banks aren’t sure what to do with it.
When the coronavirus pandemic hit last year, corporate executives rushed to raise money. Banks have been holding that cash ever since, and because companies are reluctant to borrow from them, they can’t turn it into income-generating loans. That has weighed on banks’ profit margins, and some have started pushing corporate customers to spend the cash on their businesses or move it elsewhere.
Bankers say they thought the improving economy would reduce companies’ desire for holding cash, but deposit inflows have continued in recent weeks. Chief financial officers and treasurers, many still wary of the pandemic’s impact, say they aren’t ready for big changes, even if they earn little or nothing on their deposits.
[...] Top of mind for many big banks is a rule requiring them to hold capital equivalent to at least 3% of all assets. Worried about the rule’s impact during the pandemic, the Fed changed the calculation in 2020 to ignore deposits the banks held at the central bank, but ended that break this March. Since then, some banks have warned the growing deposits could force them to raise more capital, or say no to deposits.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 15 2021, @07:47PM (8 children)
This is a topic well outside of my range of experience, so please forgive me if this is a dumb question... but... how does this not just end in businesses just moving to another bank? Seems to me deposits are the whole reason a company would do business with a bank in the first place, but again this is a topic I'm completely ignorant on. Is there some Mr. Drysdale sort of nuance I'm missing?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @07:51PM
>> Is there some Mr. Drysdale sort of nuance I'm missing?
Yes. Banks have limited room in their vaults. When you reach a certain limit (called the bank's "capital ratio"), there's no longer enough empty space in the vault for the bank CEO to roll around naked in the piles of cash. Thus the current problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by EvilSS on Tuesday June 15 2021, @07:54PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @02:09PM (1 child)
What do you mean? A PITA to change banks? If you're big enough, the bank you're changing to is very eager to make this very easy on you and your customers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18 2021, @08:06AM
Not if you are too big and your ratio is too high/low. Switching in that case either costs the company a lot of money in penalties that they usually forward to the bank or costs the bank a lot of money by changing their liquidity too much or in expenses eating into their net.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:10PM
Banks and industry are run by Jews and Jews collude. In America, auto insurance is required in 48 states. In states where insurance is required, you will hear commercials about switching auto insurance to save money. Well, guess what: The best offer you're gonna get is that same damn offer you're getting with your current insurance company. And auto insurance costs will rise year after year regardless of your driving history.
Jewish greed is to blame, but to their credit driving will indeed become a lot more dangerous in the near future thanks to all the illegals they're bringing in. We're already seeing a huge uptick in Mexican-related driving infractions such as DUI, unlicensed driving, uninsured driving, hit-and-runs, and generally driving like they're in China or Vietnam.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:34PM
As best I understand it, the problem is that your cash in a bank is the bank's liability. I promise this will get somewhere, but think back to the mortgage crisis. The bank's income stream was your liability, your mortgage. The mortgage crisis happened in part because we had only a few giant institutions who were shoving the risk of the mortgages out the back door while buying up that same risk in the front door. In order to protect themselves from bad loans, banks got a whole bunch of new restrictions that limited their ability to make out new loans or convert their liability, your cash, into an asset. Furthermore, they seem unwilling to do so for reasons unknown (except to really rich people). One last brief aside, the way banks deal with your cash being a liability is via owning 2-3 year treasuries that pay 0.x% currently and then they pay you some smaller % of interest in your savings you deposited with them. Now with that, we can tackle your question.
The reason that moving banks doesn't work is that the banking system is really made up of about 5 big banks. Mega corporations have to use these big banks because the small banks would be swamped by their size. Like how mortgage risk was spread around the 5 big banks in crazy methods, the liabilities of banks get spread around too. They already know how to trade with each other, moving liabilities around via asset swaps (treasuries), even if they are not actually swapping the deposits. There is in effect, too much currency relative to assets (for those who have large balance sheets) in the system right now, and so the natural interest rate for the US gov't 2-3 year bonds should be negative, due to excess demand. That would mean everyone would have negative interest rates and would pull cash out the system. The problem there is you'll just put it under the bed, whereas the fed wants you to go spending it. Losing the purpose of a bank, to hold that cash is obviously bad for banks. So the fed is giving the banks an out via reverse repo so they get a 0% interest rate, rather than negative, to keep the banks alive. That is the plumbing as I understand it.
On a more speculative side, but perhaps interesting let me add a few side comments. If you buy into MMT, the other ways to delete the excess cash is to tax it away, but that is beyond the fed's ability to implement and is where predicting what will happen next becomes hazy. The other unexpected element to this is that banks create ("print") money via credit creation. That is to say, they add money to your account where money didn't exist before (See Richard Werner's studies on this). In theory the banks basically are a management mechanism for running the economy. This works great when there are lots of little banks, all local, who know who is trust worthy to give money to and who isn't (ala It's a Wonderful Life). That is to say, when they assess on character and community needs. As big business and big banks have expanded to kill many of the local banks off, that is dying off. Much of the alt currencies and anti-1%ers are diagnosing this problem where the system doesn't scale up well because the big banks only really deal with big clients. They created a bunch of credit in Feb/March 2020 (printed money) when every business accessed their revolving credit. Now the businesses realize they can fire more workers and have less real estate (work remotely, etc.) they need less cash than before. Yet the businesses also know that this pandemic playbook is pretty hard to predict, there just isn't a map for this. So they want the cash for safety and they want the bank to deal with it. But the bank's constraints make it difficult, because that + stimmy money are pushing on the constraining rules the banks have to follow. Outside of the stimmy money, much of the cash the banks are dealing with is credit creation they made. They just aren't built to hold that money, they are built to see it go somewhere (ala velocity of money). Thus the system is contorting to deal with it.
NOTE: I'm not a banker, accountant or any kind of expert, just a dud who has been studying this for a while and thinks that the models they have might be useful.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:41PM
Actually, people do business with a bank for the deposits, and sometimes mortgage loans. Businesses may manage their cash flow through banks, but importantly banks take the deposits that the little people have put in, and issue loans to businesses [youtu.be]. Sometimes the banks then sell those loans (which is sort of a promise to pay that amount plus some interest) to other banks, and get their money back right away.
When a business pays back that money, the promise is fulfilled and the loan sort of 'disappears':
In the current situation, consider that not only do they have to keep finding businesses to loan money to as part of their daily business, if they have *more* deposits coming in, they need to loan out even *more* money -- and not willy-nilly, or they might loan it to someone with a bad business plan [youtu.be] who's at more of a risk of their business failing and folding, and the loan not being repaid. So the banks are asking the businesses not to make big deposits, since banks are already having trouble loaning out the money they have on hand.
This is grossly simplified, as you can ruin someone's credit rating or take their house (e.g., a 'secured' loan) if they don't pay back their loans, plus loan rates fluctuate, but you can whack other information or questions you have against this description and refine it.
(Score: 1) by RobC207 on Wednesday June 16 2021, @02:24AM
The thing is...when you deposit cash in the bank that becomes a liability for the bank. They need to pay you that money in the future.
On the positive side, from their point of view... a loan is an asset for the bank. You're on the hook to provide them income.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @07:48PM (1 child)
No one can tell you what to do with your Bitcoin. Central bank can't force their banker puppets to refuse to accept it. If you want to leave it in your wallet no one can tell you to take it out. It's legal currency in El Salvador. And the list goes on...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:10PM
well, due to it's lack of privacy bitcoin can get marked tainted and the feds can make exchanges not accept it. They can't stop you from paying someone willing to accept it directly though. I like Monero, but many cowardly exchanges won't list it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:06PM (19 children)
Spend it on employees! Yeah, right.
Surprised they don't just give THEMSELVES bonuses.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday June 15 2021, @09:41PM (14 children)
This is actually the exact problem in the US at the moment. Money is trickling to the top and not making its way back down. Those at the top are hoarding it, thus keeping it out of, and slowing, the economy. This in turns damages the businesses that they own, because their customers can't afford to spend money that they don't have.
The problem would be largely solved by handing out a bunch of cash to employees, who will use it to go out and spend, stimulating the economy and generating demand (thus improving the outlook of business). It would actually be a win-win, but the cash hoarders can't see beyond having the biggest number in the bank they can (which they'll never spend).
(Score: 4, Informative) by MIRV888 on Tuesday June 15 2021, @11:24PM
You said 'at the moment'.
I would submit that the upward trickling has been going on for a very long time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:35AM (12 children)
The thing to remember here is that by "hoarding" that money, they are losing that money. Inflation will chew it up. Putting cash into a low value but liquid investment means that they are waiting for better economic circumstances.
So it's not win-win, because you don't have an actual solution for the "cash hoarders". They aren't choosing to lose money because they want big numbers in a cash account, but because it's not a good investment to hand out a bunch of cash to employees, getting nothing in return (and sorry, some nebulous promise that it's good for the economy counts as nothing in return).
Instead, it's the economy, stupid. [wikipedia.org] Work on fixing the problems afflicting these economies, short and long term, such as covid, out of control government spending, trade wars, terrible infrastructure policy, ideological conflict, and punishing employers. That sort of thing will do more in the long term than redistributing money.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:47AM (7 children)
Hmmm, let's see what you mean by that.
Agreed, we need to get that under control to get things back on track
OK, fix income inequality by spending less. This very much depends on what you are cutting spending from. If you are proposing to reduce social welfare spending then that's not going to help spread the wealth
I would normally think this refers to underspending. However, you've advocated a reduction in government spend above, so perhaps you mean we spend too much on infrastructure?
Big Govt vs Small Govt? In other words, spend less?
By taxing them too much? Less money into Govt!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your solution to the lack of money in the economy is to spend less.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday June 16 2021, @12:05PM (6 children)
Where's the evidence that is a problem? I certainly don't see it as one, much less one that can be fixed by a temporary redistribution of cash (after the money runs out, it no longer counts as income). Once the cash goes away, you're back to square one with the businesses actually providing the incomes now missing that cash. The demand-oriented point of view doesn't tell us where the cash is supposed to come from the next time.
And you're not any wealthier or better off, if Gates were worth a million dollars instead of 100 billion dollars.
Yes and no.
I think we spend too much on new infrastructure and too little on maintaining existing infrastructure. For example, I'm seeing estimates of deferred maintenance on US public infrastructure in the neighborhood [bondbuyer.com] of a trillion dollars. California presently is planning to spend a tenth of that ($100 billion) to build an almost useless stretch of high speed rail. A tenth of the US's maintenance deficit is squandered on a flashy train to nowhere.
Let's maintain useful infrastructure instead.
Or how about things like not turning covid mitigation (like wearing masks) into a political issue? Not burning down local businesses because cops shot a black guy? The endless public theater over people who don't think or believe the same things?
Among other things, by putting in tax and regulatory disincentives to employ people - like high taxes per employee and large regulatory obstacles when businesses hit certain numbers of employees (50 full time employees is a popular regulatory threshold in the US). Put in a disincentive to employ people and those businesses employ less people. Amazing how that works.
In any case, all that cash indicates that the economy isn't providing opportunities for investment and employing people, not yet another useless wealth redistribution scheme.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:08PM (1 child)
Another roynd of khallow's tit for tat stupidity. Does anyone actually read his walls of text anymore?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday June 16 2021, @10:22PM
I appreciate the fact that he responded to my questions: +1 Interesting. I don't agree with most of his post, but I can appreciate that he has an opinion on it. We are definitely aligned on Infrastructure spending - way too little spend on maintaining existing stuff.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday June 18 2021, @12:51AM (3 children)
I think this is actually becoming one of the major problems, especially on the small end of the investment scale. At some point, the economy is producing enough to feed, house, and entertain everyone without requiring anywhere near enough human work to keep everyone employed.
Investing in a new business requires identifying an under-filled need in order to attract customers. It is getting to the point where starting a new business means competing with a giant company, it is just not viable unless you can come up with something that is both truly new and valuable. Not many people can do that, and every time one does there is one less opportunity left. At the same time, big companies are streamlining and using automation and economies of scale to reduce the number of employees.
The government here is doing exactly the wrong thing. They should be lowering the retirement age and encouraging shorter working weeks. Instead, at least here in Oz, they are doing the exact opposite. The retirement age goes up by one year every two, they keep reducing penalty rates for overtime, and (big surprise!) many of the kids leaving school can't find jobs.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 18 2021, @03:19AM (2 children)
The economy does a hell of a lot more than that. A couple of big ones are human longevity and improving our own abilities.
This happens all the time. Giant companies are notorious for being unable to find and deliver new and valuable goods and services. Small businesses explore the many profitable avenues the giants ignore.
Sounds like Oz is forced to be smarter than you (probably because they need the resources from those additional workers to provide the services they've committed to). This is far from the first time that someone has come up with a relatively sensible list of problems and then proposed a solution that requires turning their back completely on the problems they just acknowledged. Deliberately shrinking the labor market won't identify under-filled needs nor create more small and medium sized businesses. Instead, it destroys resources like labor that would otherwise be applied to such problems.
It's a problem creator, not a problem solver.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday June 18 2021, @05:21AM (1 child)
Which changes the actual point of that paragraph by about 0.4 iotas.
Except the giants aren't ignoring them anymore. Set up almost any innovative new small business and some large company will crush it.
The labour market is currently over-supplied. This is evidenced by the difficulty young people have in entering it. Raising the retirement age is like eating your seedcorn. By the time those geriatrics are finally knocked off by COVID 2040 or something society is going to hit a wall where no-one knows how to do the jobs. 30 year-olds on unemployment for 10 years are not ideal trainees and no trainers will be around anyway. Early retirement forces the companies to train the next generation now.
Yes we should be massively investing in life-extension, medical research, space, all that stuff. Now what percentage of people do you think can realistically contribute to that sort of endeavor? I would say less than 1% of people have the capability to undertake research at that level.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 18 2021, @07:42AM
The claim that giants aren't ignoring the small fry and "crushing" them is bunk. For example, one such phenomena is for small companies to cut in on large companies' business merely by replicating what made the large company successful in the first place. This happens a lot in the retail, grocery, and restaurant sectors, for example. The big company gets sloppy and often a small company just inserts itself, often using the same tricks that the big company once used.
Second, my point about your paragraph, which you complete miss, is that there is huge room for the economy to improve our lives. Sure, there's only so much food you can eat - we can only go so far there. But there's a lot more life you could be living. There's a lot more knowledge you could be learning. Places you could go. Etc. Treating those far more open-ended needs/wants the same as food and shelter is profoundly ignorant.
Third, let's look at this paragraph:
As I already noted, there's a number of countries that don't have trouble with over-supplied labor markets. They don't need to do any of the above. It's time to look at what works.
What I find particularly remarkable is your lack of interest in finding solutions that don't blatant cause the problems you're complaining about. For example, if we reduce human participation in labor (which is what your previous suggestions about early retirement and shortening the work week would do), then 30 year olds who haven't seen work aren't going to be your biggest problems. A huge pile of people who aren't doing anything will be your biggest problem.
Further, you complain about lack of experience among workers while proposing policies - like getting rid of the most experienced workers - that will just make it worse. At least propose something that makes things better.
It's throwing away the seed corn to throw away good workers because of some ridiculous ideological goal. Get more employers - not throw more workers out.
A lot more than 1%. Research doesn't happen in a vacuum nor is it the largest part of investing in "all that stuff". You need a lot of infrastructure, support staff, and implementation staff. For example, suppose your "less than 1%" researcher comes up with an idea for extending life span by 10 years. Well, how do you know it'd work? It needs to be tested. More than 1% of the population can do serious work there. Then when such treatments work, you need to apply them to people. That requires more staff, again more than 1%. All those people need low skill work done, like empty trashcans, moving packages, greeting people, and such. And of course, now that you have a large group of wealthier people working in this industry, they need stuff from the general market - landscaping, childcare, auto and housework, etc.
The ignorance here is remarkable. There is a simple answer to this supply and demand problem - increase the demand for workers. It's worked for centuries, far longer than any of us have been alive. We should wonder why you're deliberately choosing the more painful and harmful route rather than the obvious route. But this would require us to actually throw some bennies to the people who actually hire rather than the rest who don't.
My take is that ultimately this is yet another lobbying effort for a lifestyle. As a near libertarian, I have no trouble with you living however you like (bar the usual imposition on other peoples' rights), but I see no reason we should structure society to accommodate your desired lifestyle. Figure out how to fund it yourself. Don't cripple your society for your own selfish interests.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @02:26PM (3 children)
Anytime I hear this I tune out. You do not understand finances at a sovereign state level.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:15PM (2 children)
If your brain is automatically blocking information you disagree with, that is a sign of poor mental health. It is a defense mechanism to avoid realizing you are wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:48PM (1 child)
You're not wrong, but listening to that drivel is even worse. I'll be dumber for it afterwards, have a headache, and will have had to spend mental cycles on listening to something that is categorically bullshit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 18 2021, @03:27AM
Sorry, that's a solid indication you're the one with the thinking problem. Every time I hear that sentiment explained, the person follows up with economic unicorns - things like helicopter money and other retarded bullshit where (in particular) control over money creation somehow can fix decades of irresponsible decisions overnight.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 15 2021, @10:03PM (3 children)
Oh, trust me, that's in the plans already. Pandemic impacted sales and performance targets mean extra large bonuses when "expectations are exceeded," and beyond that there are bigger and bigger perks in store for the upper echelons, particularly those who very publicly sacrificed their bonuses for 2020.
Now, if I'm obtuse then please explain like I'm five, but... if banks are required to keep 3% of their deposits in capital equivalent, aren't these deposits 100% capital equivalent? I mean, they can't loan them out because there are no takers for the loans, so I get that they may be losing money, but it seems like they would be beating that 3% rule in spades. It also seems like that 3% rule may be far far too low if these companies "run on the banks" taking cash out all at once in the near future.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @12:45AM (2 children)
No, they are not capital equivalent. Deposits are a liability, not an asset, from the bank's point of view. This means that each deposited dollar decreases their capital equivalents.
It is also worth pointing out that the capital equivalent requirement is not the same as the reserve requirement for depository institutions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:29AM (1 child)
Sorry, the five year old in me doesn't understand.
These deposited dollars aren't going into depository institutions? Or, are they also depository institutions subject to the reserve requirement too?
I get that a deposit presents as a liability on the balance sheet, but the five year old in me wants to know where that deposit went, and why it is not fungible with capital?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:02AM
Because the Capital Equivalence rule is based on a modified balance sheet. Basically, it is the modified equity of the bank which is composed of the money that is not subject to the demand of a holder. Deposit money on hand may be an asset in the general sense but it is a part of a liability subject to the demand of a holder; the depositor has the (almost) unlimited right to walk into their bank and ask for all their money. Therefore, if the bank were to suffer a large risk event tomorrow, they cannot count on using the deposited money for it because, theoretically, everyone could post a demand (e.g. a run) simultaneous with the risk event. That is also why money deposited at the central bank cannot be used that way either: they don't actually have that cash on hand and they cannot demand it from the central bank immediately in order to cover that risk event. Deposits are even worse however because they also count as an additional liability for a percentage of their total against the capital of the bank, which reduces the bank's capital equivalent asset total even further and thus have a larger effect on the asset allocation percentage.
Here is my attempt at a true ELI5. Let's say you are the playground bank. The only deposit you have is $10 from me and you don't hold any loans. The schoolyard bully says they spun the Wheel of Doom and you owe $1 by the end of the day. You could use a dollar from my $10 to cover that event but I could walk up at any time and ask for it back. Therefore, there is no guaranteed way to simultaneously survive both events with your capital. However if in addition to my $10, you had either $1 worth of CCE in an account of your own or stock that sells for $1 (equity) you are guaranteed to survive the event without problem.
Real life is more complicated because they deal with probabilities, but that is the basic idea. They are trying to make it so the bank survives the risks it takes on while simultaneously limiting the damage it does to other institutions, protecting the depositors money, and preventing passing of risk onto borrowers through calls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:28PM (1 child)
Heard of fractional reserve requirement, but what's this capital reserve rule? And "capital" here means cash equivalent? If so, why doesn't the deposit held at fed not count as ready capital?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:44AM
Because it isn't a deposit in the usual sense. In order to stabilize the entire system, they cannot demand the money in the same way you can with your bank. There are limitations to how, when, what amount, and sometime even why they can ask for the deposit back. At least on paper, that is.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 15 2021, @08:39PM (2 children)
They have been flooding Wall Street with cash for years. This is just another symptom to add to their hyper-inflation bubble. Let's see what pops..
They could spend the money on... "infrastructure"... Ye gods, whatta meesa sayin'?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 15 2021, @09:24PM (1 child)
Careful, now. That's pinko commie talk.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:28AM
Not if the governor sells it to his brother-in-law and he puts a toll-booth on it.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday June 15 2021, @09:29PM
> Top of mind for many big banks is a rule requiring them to hold capital equivalent to at least 3% of all assets.
Deposits are liabilities, loans are assets. If businesses aren't taking out loans, that means the need to hold capital goes down.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Tuesday June 15 2021, @11:26PM (1 child)
I am unclear on whether we are talking about physical cash or just balances on a sheet.
Either way, to a working class fellow like me the idea the bank would refuse my deposit is inconceivable.
(Score: 1) by crm114 on Wednesday June 16 2021, @12:44AM
Of course we are not talking about physical bills.
I (joe normal) make money by providing a service or physical product. I use a bank to make it easy for my customers to pay me, and me to pay my suppliers and employees.
A bank makes money on loans. My deposit (at 0.01% - or even 0.0% interest) is a loss to them. They have the paperwork, legal fees, whatever.
Large customers (aka companies) are not borrowing money.
Do the math. :)
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday June 16 2021, @12:45AM (8 children)
Given the huge amount of inflation, I'm surprised that so many companies are hoarding USD assets. The last thing you want to hold is a rapidly depreciating asset.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:29AM (7 children)
What inflation? Show me any appreciable inflation in prices. The money supply increasing doesn't matter when money is not being spent.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:47AM (6 children)
Lumber prices have almost doubled. Some foods have sharply increased in price.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @06:46AM (5 children)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2021/05/22/why-lumber-and-plywood-prices-are-so-high-and-when-they-will-come-down/ [forbes.com] The problem with a lot of prices is not inflation, it is the supply and demand having been drastically changed during the pandemic.
Besides, most of that "inflation" worry is just the comparisons being all off because of the pandemic as well. When you compare now to where we were then, yes it looks bad. But compare the actual trend line [stlouisfed.org] and it isn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to think
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @03:23PM (4 children)
The D in math was because we had a substitute teacher for a week, and in english the D was just because of one essay the teacher didn't like. The B in gym should have been an A but I hurt my ankle and couldn't finish the lap.
So basically I got straight A's.
Imagine being a parent that would accept this type of rationalizing.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 16 2021, @05:19PM (1 child)
If the kid had been in hospital for most of the year, that might be accepted as an explanation of less than stellar grades.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 18 2021, @07:47AM
That kid still wouldn't have gotten straight As as a result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @09:23PM (1 child)
It is more like your kid has been getting B+ grades most of your life, had a dip down to C/C- grades for a year and then improved to B+ again. The conservative parents are the ones saying "wow look at how much higher their grade is this year." The other parent is just pointing out that the kid just went back to where they've usually been.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @04:38AM
I got a D because Trump.
That's ok son.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:21AM (1 child)
is open for business! deposit cash now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:41AM
I am a Nigerian Prince.
I would love to invest! Just give me your Routing Number and Account Number, and I will deposit 2.4$ (two million, four hundred thousand US dollars) into your bank!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @01:36AM
I wonder if the WSB squeeze on hedge funds has impacted this? Making them pull their heads in probably hasn't helped the banks loan more money to them.