The difference being the deposit account is a tool of monetary policy so price matters, whereas required reserves are mandatory and thus inelastic. Which makes today’s move a bank levy, if one were to put it kindly.
Possibly - though it'll make virtually no difference to losses. Monetary income is 'pooled' including negative income. As Buba and BdF hold the lion's share of Deposit Account holdings paying the majority of the IOR they benefit (relatively) by transfers from other members. But Current Account holdings are more-or-less inconsequentially low compared to Deposit Account.
No, disingenuous because they say they have made the change to save interest costs, but the savings are more than offset by raising rates on the remunerated reserves.
The difference being the deposit account is a tool of monetary policy so price matters, whereas required reserves are mandatory and thus inelastic. Which makes today’s move a bank levy, if one were to put it kindly.
It's irrelevant.
Nice - I have a warm comfortable feeling! :-O
Totally bizarre announcement. It must have something to do with the P&L...
Hold that feeling for as long as you are able.
Possibly - though it'll make virtually no difference to losses. Monetary income is 'pooled' including negative income. As Buba and BdF hold the lion's share of Deposit Account holdings paying the majority of the IOR they benefit (relatively) by transfers from other members. But Current Account holdings are more-or-less inconsequentially low compared to Deposit Account.
Is the basic point that the 25bps increase in one reserve facility is partially offset by the 0% interest of another? Hence, “disingenuous”
No, disingenuous because they say they have made the change to save interest costs, but the savings are more than offset by raising rates on the remunerated reserves.