3 ms·
Which, given my layman's understanding, implies that the policy is at the same time idiotic and genius. More specifically, the deposits are mandatory and under
by cgio 12y ago
Which, given my layman's understanding, implies that the policy is at the same time idiotic and genius. More specifically, the deposits are mandatory and under the liquidity coverage ratio in Basel. Therefore, the negative rate will only have the intended effect as long as the financial institutions maintain a higher than required coverage. That extraneous buffer being minimised, the incentive will be to keep liquidity in government bonds and especially those from big economies with good ratings, essentially moving liquidity to the centre of the European economy (Germany and maybe France.) Therefore, the periphery economies will be funding the central ones. Genius. Or Idiocy. From a purely theoretic perspective, the efficiency of these economies should be bolstered, but this happens to the detriment of the periphery and more or less diminishes their chance to balance their performance. The question is whether the goal of the Euro Area is economic performance or economic balance and stability.
- cgio 12y agoInstead of a simple down-vote, I would appreciate an argument. After all, I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject and I am completely open to being educated about how this measure could work out.