3 ms·
No, they were greedy. They were going to lose it one way or another, either through inflation or through asset depreciation. There was no way around it. Going t
by pishpash 4y ago
No, they were greedy. They were going to lose it one way or another, either through inflation or through asset depreciation. There was no way around it. Going to a riskier asset doesn't help because all assets have the same interest-rate risk embedded. They just took on more risk in addition to that.
Real rates were negative for 10+ years (and still are on the short end!). That's everyone paying for trillions of dollars of wars, speculation and bad investments. The bill has to be paid.
But as mentioned, none of this applies to intermediaries like banks. They aren't forced to take on any risk.
- duxup 4y agoI think coredog64 is speaking more generally. The bank in the article was foolish. Other banks can still encounter real problems with too much cash on hand... granted they don't have to go hog wild on MBS or anything like that.
- pishpash 4y agoYes, why did they invest in MBS, with negative convexity, at historically low rates!
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago> Real rates were negative for 10+ years (and still are on the short end!). That's everyone paying for trillions of dollars of wars, speculation and bad investments. The bill has to be paid. They sure were, and fortunately humanity took that free money and invested it in sustainable energy technology so that at least we got a bunch of infrastructure out of it. Oh actually wait we just had austerity for some reason.