Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,688
The alternative for the government is borrowing money at a 3% interest rate. At least with the likes of prize bonds that interest is going back to the population.Government policy is probably better spent providing targeted supports to those who really need help rather than giving to those who have excess savings.
That's my point. It is an abuse of the supply and demand dynamics. As @basilbrush has pointed out they pay the big boys and girls (mostly foreign) nearly 10 times the interest rate that they pay their own pensioners' state savings, knowing the latter will not in general walk.It's basic supply and demand.
Is it fair that we have some of the lowest new business mortgage rates in the Eurozone?…but is it fair?
I'm not sure Adam Smith would agree with the word abuse in the same sentence of supply and demand.That's my point. It is an abuse of the supply and demand dynamics.
The UK is relevant as they pay their pensioners' state savings roughly the same interest rate that they pay the big girls even though they too could get away with screwing the financially ignorant and vulnerable pensioners.
BTW do not be fooled by a few billion corporate tax windfalls. This country owes €250 billion which it constantly has to repay and roll over. It is a borrower, big time, and always will be.
Correct. This is the purpose of monetary policy in inflationary times. If the price of money is increased, i.e. the rates charged for loans, spending at the margin decreases. Reduction in the supply of money will lead to a reduction of inflation.Sure, banks could increase rates to maintain those deposits but they would then increase the rates charged on loans to compensate.
The increase in financing a mortgage, due to increased mortgage rates, will mean some households, i.e. those intending to take out mortgages, cannot now finance mortgages. This should cause house prices to fall or moderate any price increase, where the increase in interest rates causes a reduction in the supply of mortgages, as certain prospective house buyers cannot afford them.That would hamper the ability of households to finance house purchases, which is obviously a policy priority for the State.
It’s the other way around. If the NTMA increases interest rates on state savings, money will flood out of the banks and into state savings, unless the banks increase their deposit rates accordingly. [A move that inter alia would benefit those saving with banks for house deposits.]So I don’t see any prospect of the NTMA substantially increasing rates on State Savings products while domestic bank deposits rates remain low.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, if households have increased mortgage payments, they have less money to buy goods and services, which will also cause a reduction in the price or prevent an increase in price of these items, thus lowering inflation, which is the objective of the ECB.
My point was (and I think you got it) that the supply/demand dynamic is very asymmetric as between the State and the pensioners (mostly). This is the first time that I recall that the inertia of state savings has been so cynically exploited - though as @Sarenco says, maybe it is done in the greater scheme and, yes, pensioners have been very well treated e.g. on the state pension.I'm not sure Adam Smith would agree with the word abuse in the same sentence of supply and demand.
Agreed and not as you said previously "just a way of raising money for the government of the day"State savings were designed as a way of encouraging people to save .
There is something dysfunctional going on at the moment. Deposit rates have completely failed to follow ECB rates. State savings should have been used, as previously, to put manners on what is a very asymmetric relationship between banks and small savers - but of course we do have the @Sarenco point.But times have moved on and the market for savings products has matured. Banks and credit unions offer the equivalent product so there really isn't a need for the State to play a large role.
AgreedIf you're making the case that state savers are pensioners then you need to look at their full suite of supports.
Fair point.There are a range of supports that are better suited to targeting the worse off.
Not sure about that. See other thread on investing in Govies. Pensioners with say over €100k to invest can get crumbs from the big girls' table and enjoy over 2% p.a., government guaranteed.In contrast increasing the savings rates would be, at best, un-targeted and more likely to be regressive. After all it would disproportionally help the wealthier saver/pensioner and do little for the very poor.
Agreed and again this counters your assertion that it is "just a way of raising money for the government of the day". It has developed into a sort of social service to bring some balance into the small saver/big banks relationship.Of the €236 billion debt only €20 billion is state savings. It's probably the case that most of that debt is a stable source of funding. However, it's not a set of products that will generate large amounts of funding in a reasonable period of time. So not a realistic means of raising funds for refinance existing debt or other purposes.
That excuse is partially valid but was wearing thin and was completely exploded when about two weeks ago they announced one of their periodic revisions to state savings rates. The revised rates were meagre, to put it mildly. For example, 4 year National Solidarity Bond was set at 0.50% AER despite the fact that 4 year Irish Government Bonds are trading at 5 times that interest rate.Is it the case that the state savings rates are lagging?
My point was (and I think you got it) that the supply/demand dynamic is very asymmetric as between the State and the pensioners (mostly). This is the first time that I recall that the inertia of state savings has been so cynically exploited
Like many government initiatives it WAS designed to encourage a behaviour . In its day , decades ago, it was to encourage personal savings. However, the financial system, and the people using it, have matured. It's now pretty redundant as a policy tool. From a savers perspective, it's been mostly replaced by the private sector banks and credit unions. NOW it's an (inefficient) sytem through which the government can raise some small change.Agreed and not as you said previously "just a way of raising money for the government of the day"
A couple of points on this:There is something dysfunctional going on at the moment. Deposit rates have completely failed to follow ECB rates.
State savings should have been used, as previously, to put manners on what is a very asymmetric relationship between banks and small savers
Not sure about that. See other thread on investing in Govies. Pensioners with say over €100k to invest can get crumbs from the big girls' table and enjoy over 2% p.a., government guaranteed.
I wasn't referring to asymmetry of supply and demand. I was talking about asymmetry of power in the relationship. The state have monopolistic power in setting the price and have until recently exercised it in a manner to put manners on the relationship between small savers and financial institutions. But as @Sarenco I think correctly surmises they have a different agenda at the moment - keep down the rise in mortgage rates. I think there is little doubt that if state savings rates were increased in line with the market interest rate it would trigger rises in the retail interest rate across the board - not what the government wants.Yes supply (of available savings) are high and demand (from the State for this money) is low so price (state savings rate) is low. No abuse, just basic economics.
That is what I mean by dysfunctional - you agree, in fact current market behaviour is "beyond you". But I am sure a semantic argument can be made that it is not technically "dysfunctional" - but let's leave that to the Jesuits.See above explanation on supply and demand. Nothing dysfunctional, you might not like the outcome but very much in line with how a functioning market should work.
Of course you're right on the inertia. To channel my inner "Duke of Marmalade" I'd nearly go as far to say savers are "self abusing". Just look at the savings rates on offer to Irish depositors. Why more people haven't moved their money is beyond me.
It's a good point and yours truly is a poster boy for the syndrome. I am reasonably financially aware and yet, irrational as I know it is, a Latvian deposit guarantee just doesn't cut it for me. The single market ain't really working in retail financial services - a fact which is really evident in the residential mortgage market.The more people move their money the more likely Irish retail banks (and maybe even state savings?) are to react.
Well not monetary policy, that is the ECB's but given the little guy a fair crack of the whip can benefit from some social intervention in the savings market IMHO. You come across as a bit leftie. I'm leftie myself, as dukes go. I'm surprised you are not championing a fair deal on state savings for the little guy.It's an interesting point. I'm not sure the relationship was as exactly as you described. I can imagine, in decades past when we were a closed system, state savings was a tool used to aid monetary policy.
Apologies, I thought you were reasonably well clued in. Treasury Bond 2027 is currently yielding 4 times the interest rate as 4 year National Solidarity Bond and has the same government guarantee. You said that increasing state savings rates would " disproportionally help the wealthier saver/pensioner". We are a long way from the "wealthier" pensioner having anything to do with state savings.I'm not sure what any of this means. But my point is government policy should be spent helping those people who need i.e., pensioners on or below the poverty line. Not those pensioners who have €100k spare cash sitting around.
I wasn't referring to asymmetry of supply and demand. I was talking about asymmetry of power in the relationship.
If you have a narrow view of the savings market where you only see state savings then yes there is monopolistic view but it's not a credible perspective.The state have monopolistic power in setting the price
That is what I mean by dysfunctional - you agree, in fact current market behaviour is "beyond you". But I am sure a semantic argument can be made that it is not technically "dysfunctional" - but let's leave that to the Jesuits.
It's a good point and yours truly is a poster boy for the syndrome. I am reasonably financially aware and yet, irrational as I know it is, a Latvian deposit guarantee just doesn't cut it for me. The single market ain't really working in retail financial services - a fact which is really evident in the residential mortgage market.
So you want equal outcomes - regardless of how much effort you don't put in. What we are presented with is equal opportunities. No it won't reward inertia nor had it ever.Well not monetary policy, that is the ECB's but given the little guy a fair crack of the whip can benefit from some social intervention in the savings market IMHO. You come across as a bit leftie. I'm leftie myself, as dukes go. I'm surprised you are not championing a fair deal on state savings for the little guy.
The interest rate on state savings had not been altered for over two years since February 2021. Can you think of any other market that Adam Smith would perceive as functioning where the price could be held so steady and any changes decided at the whim of one side of the relationship?If you have a narrow view of the savings market where you only see state savings then yes there is monopolistic view but it's not a credible perspective.
I don't really get this. I am asking for fair rates on the little guy's state savings just as it used to be and you label me a communistSo you want equal outcomes - regardless of how much effort you don't put in. What we are presented with is equal opportunities. No it won't reward inertia nor had it ever.
Not labeling you anything at all. Just trying to sift through the layers of hyperbole and figure out the point you've been trying to get to. You've posted plenty but nothing to actually support the title of the thread.I am asking for fair rates on the little guy's state savings just as it used to be and you label me a communist
Title changed.You've posted plenty but nothing to actually support the title of the thread.
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?