Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,839
If a new entrant to the market offered loans at significantly lower rates than other market participants and the incumbents were unable to compete (due to higher cost of funds and/or capital), then I think you could be confident that the new entrant would capture significantly more than 10% of the market.
Would the incumbent banks continue to be profitable if they started writing variable rate mortgages at 2.5%? They are barely profitable (and not yet profitable in the case of PTSB) at current lending rates. I really don't see how the incumbents could possibly compete with a new lender that offered variable rate mortgages @ 2.5%, given the legacy of mis-priced and non-performing mortgages on their books. These legacy issues feed directly into their provisioning requirements and their cost of funds.
This is the point that most people keep missing. It is not a question of the overall profitability of the lender. It is the profitability of the individual products. If it's profitable for BoI to lend at 2.5%, then they should do so rather than not lend at all. Of course,they prefer lending at 4.5%.
Well, I would suggest that the point you keep missing (or ignoring) is the fact that historic losses impact the pricing of new loans.
A new entrant would have a lower cost of funds and would have to raise and set aside less loss-absorbing capital for new loans, because they would not have experienced the same historic losses as the incumbents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?