3 ms·
This article is super interesting and potentially highly political, although Bloomberg does well to neutralize the issue behind straight business reporting. Re
by Von_Jones 13y ago
This article is super interesting and potentially highly political, although Bloomberg does well to neutralize the issue behind straight business reporting.
Related, I am interested in the following questions and am looking to do some research in the new year to investigate:
1. How much is paid in home loan interest to banks annually.
2. How much of this bank income is paid in interest to (a) savers, (b) other issuers of debt
3. How much of this bank income is paid in dividends to bank owners.
4. How much of this bank income is paid in salaries to bank staff.
5. How long the average home owner spends working for the above three categories in their quest for home ownership (I look at this as a form of indenture).
Following this article, I will also be looking at the question of how much in rental income is paid to financial institutions.
I am also interested in the relationship between bank lending and house price increases, ie as banks lend more, do they understand how this affects future business, ie an increase in lending of 10%, leads to house price rises of x%, leading to an increase in bank income of y%.
I guess there must be such models out there?
Any sources of data / reading would be much appreciated!
- VLM 13y agoMost mortgage pushers don't hold the note and promptly sell them off. Commissions and fees vary quite a bit around 2 to 5 percent of loan size. So "most people lending money" are playing a commission game on how fast they can sell and turn around and loan the money again. Dude who pushes / approves loans in the modern system does not equal dude who holds the note. You might find thehousingbubbleblog.com or zerohedge to be interesting reading although it takes a bit of study to understand whats going on.