|
|
|
|
|
by retube
2124 days ago
|
|
This is a very misunderstood article. The money they "create", i.e loaned or paid out, has to be funded by a deposit or similar borrowing. Making sure they can fund all their commitments is what liquidity managers and treasury departments do, it's why regulators subject banks to annual ILAAPs (Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process), it's why banks have liquidity risk and modelling teams to manage any "gap" risk banks are running in this respect. If banks could simply create money then they'd never go bust. The only exception is the Central Bank, which can create new money that is it uses to buy assets of the same value, supporting prices and improving liquidity in the financial system. |
|
The bank originates a new loan that they think will be profitable. Then they need to come up with the assets to offset that loan on their balance sheet (or at least a small percentage of it).
From a macro perspective you'd expect some banks to have more assets than they need and some to have less (because if I loan Joe money then eventually it will end up back in a bank somewhere, or at least a percentage of it). Each night the banks that need assets borrow from the banks that have assets and pay a small fee.