Are Low Interest Rates Subsidies to Banks?

January 26th, 2011
in Op Ed

money clip art by Dirk Ehnts

Paul Krugman responds to Axel Leijonhufvud, saying basically “not really”.

Since I taught it yesterday morning, the IS/LM model’s money market came to my mind when I read the articles.
In the IS/LM model, savings can be kept as money or bonds. Bonds carry a moderate interest rate, so that if the interest rate of the central bank is identical to the bond rate there is not much difference (except for maturity, which is not featured in the IS/LM model – nevertheless it is important). In a situation of a very low interest rate, how will savings be split up between money and bonds?

Follow up:

In the model, bond prices are sky-high since they carry relatively low nominal yields. Since bond prices would come down as the interest of the central bank moves up, savings are held in cash. It is the expectations that interest rates will rise in the future and lead to a fall in bond prices that stops people from buying bonds. If interest rates are really, really low, even an increase in the money supply might be absorbed into holdings of cash.

We can see that in reality banks invest their money into bonds even at very low interest rates and bonds being expensive. Apparently, a positive spread is a positive spread, never mind the consequences. However. Axel had pointed this out in his article on VoxEU already, writing:

Quite apart from its distributional effects, the policy is not without risk.

* To the extent that it succeeds in inducing the banks to load up on long-term, low-yield assets, a return to more normal rates will spell another round of banking troubles.

So, I agree with Axel. Low interest rates are a subsidy now. I also agree with Paul (and, again, Axel) – there is a potential downside tomorrow. The behavior of most big banks in the last years has shown, however, that nobody there cares about tomorrow. Let me quote Chuck Prince of Citi: “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.” (2007).

Until you drop, I would add.


Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.


  1. Roger Erickson says :

    What? We essentially have "bond backed securities" now too? BBS, or B-bs; sounds iffy either way.

    to unscrupulous lenders, municipalities are not just another set of "un-creditworthy", where any funds flowing that way, no matter how briefly, can be skimmed as "fees"

    they're also verified as safe for scrupulous vendors to get dragged into? That's just another term for "extending duration of fee income". Racketeering in other contexts.

    you can feel the full implications seeping into the electorate; ever so slowly

  2. admin (Member) Email says :

    John Lounsbury @ Roger Erikson - - -
    I can't argue with racketeering. It used to be that capital was the instrument to develop means of production and currency was used as an exchange medium. We have evolved to a system where capital is the instrument for leveraging into more capital without producing anything of utility and currency is viewed as a temporary store of wealth more than an exchange medium. Of course, Midas considered money in and of itself a thing of utility. We all learned as children how ridiculous that was.

    I probably should not have used the term "evolved" above - better would have been "mutated".

    Good comment, Roger.



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved