A Quote by Sucheta Dalal

Logically, it may be argued that banks could indeed lower interest rates and make up their profits through larger borrowing volumes. But banks, in turn, could justify exorbitant rates by arguing that they cater to a riskier segment.
Negative interest rates hurt banks' balance sheets, with the 'wealth effect' on banks overwhelming the small increase in incentives to lend.
A higher IOER rate encourages banks to raise the interest rates they charge, putting upward pressure on market interest rates regardless of the level of reserves in the banking sector. While adjusting the IOER rate is an effective way to move market interest rates when reserves are plentiful, federal funds have generally traded below this rate.
Let's have honest interest rates. Let's let the free market set interest rates in that zone where supply of savings is matched up with demand for real borrowing for capital projects.
The Fed has a lot of power in the economy because it has a big impact on the supply and cost of credit, that is, interest rates. It also plays a key role in supervising banks and historically has seemed to take it easy on the banks when it shouldn't have, such as in the lead up to the financial crisis.
Lower interest rates are usually considered good for stocks because they lower the cost of borrowing and make bonds a less attractive alternative investment.
The central banks cannot control interest rates. That's a mistake. They can control a particular rate, such as the Federal Funds rate, if they want to, but they can't control interest rates.
The real challenge was to model all the interest rates simultaneously, so you could value something that depended not only on the three-month interest rate, but on other interest rates as well.
There have been times when the Federal Reserve has restricted the money supply and raised interest rates to gain an end, which had much better been left to another Government agency or the Congress to attain. The country could have had lower interest rates without sacrificing anything else.
Students who are put in a university who aren't qualified tend to have lower graduation rates, they have lower grades, they have lower bar passage rates. You can demonstrate that. You are putting them in position where they are not set up to succeed.
I've always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly - that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum.
Government should eschew suasion and directives to banks on interest rates that run counter to monetary policy actions.
If Republicans are correct that lower rates spur economic growth, then lower rates on all income - made possible in part by raising capital-gains rates - should bolster economic growth across the economy.
Public borrowing is costly these days, true, but interest rates on municipal bonds are still considerably lower than those borne by corporate debt.
Central banks have gotten out of the central banking business and into the central planning business, meaning that they are devoted to raising up-if they can-economic growth and employment through the dubious means of suppressing interest rates and printing money. The nice thing about gold is that you can't print it.
Business cycles lengthened greatly during the 20th century, as central banks learned to manage national economies by raising and lowering interest rates.
Negative interest rates have been employed by many, many central banks.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!