« Fourth Quarter GDP: Read It And Weep | Main | GDP Tanked... And Nobody Cared »
January 30, 2006
One Reason To Actually Worry About A Flat Yield Curve
From the Wall Street Journal (page C1 of the print edition):
For almost a year, the flat Treasury yield curve loomed on the horizon.
Bankers could see it coming. They had time to plan, knowing that the narrowing spread between short- and long-term interest rates squeezes their profits.
But the flattening yield curve has stymied even some of the most sophisticated and well-equipped banks in the U.S.
The nation's three biggest banks-- Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. -- were expected by many analysts to move past the flat yield curve in 2005 and beyond without sustaining significant damage to their bottom lines.
But all three -- like many smaller brethren in the financial-services industry -- posted disappointing results for the fourth quarter, and investors punished their share prices. Each cited the flat yield curve as a contributing factor, an obstacle many bankers and bond traders see in place until at least midyear...
The difference between the shorter- and longer-term rates affects not only a bank's core business of collecting deposits with a relatively low rate paid to customers and lending out that money at a higher rate. The net profit that banks, especially the bigger ones, can make from their credit-card operations and their currency, securities and other financial trading also is affected.
Banks unable to raise all the money they need to lend or conduct trades must borrow money on a short-term basis. They attempt to make more money by lending it out at a higher rate or investing it in better-yielding longer-term securities. But with the long-term and short-term interest rates about the same, that is a much less-profitable exercise.
Our friend Brad Setser says it well:
"There is a very flat yield curve globally for different reasons, even in some emerging markets," said Brad Setser, head of global research for the Roubini Global Economics Monitor, a New York-based economics Web site. "I really don't see where the easy money is. No matter how sophisticated you are, you can't get away from the basics of banking: Borrow short, lend long," he said.
If you are an optimist, this is for you:
... analysts are cautiously optimistic about 2006 when it comes to the yield curve's impact on the big banks' performance. "The bulk of the damage has been done," said [Jeff Harte, a Chicago-based banking analyst at Sandler O'Neill]. "The question is when does it get better?"
Sounds like the reaction to the last GDP report.
January 30, 2006 in Interest Rates | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d83470700b53ef
Listed below are links to blogs that reference One Reason To Actually Worry About A Flat Yield Curve:
Comments
Posted by:
bailey |
January 30, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Is anybody aware of any studies on the structure of banks assets and profits. It would be interesting to see how much is floating, mortgages, autos, trading, etc.
Posted by:
cb |
January 30, 2006 at 01:27 PM
i recall reading recently that 2/3 to 70% of bank profits are now mtg. related & that that's a huge shift. I'd like to extend your question to bank risk. What's their risk exposure to various sectors?
Posted by:
bailey |
January 30, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Feb 2, 2000 yield curve inverts, 0il at $12 a barrel, a massive equities bubble and new economy dependent on "tech".
5 weeks later March 10, 2000, tech equities bubble pops and the "new economy" tanks.
Dec 27, 2005 yield curve inverts. Oil at $68 a barrel, a massive real estate bubble and global economy dependent on US consumer spending.
5 weeks later, tomorrow January 31, 2006.
Deja Vu all over again? Lets wait and see its TBD in the next 5 weeks.
http://naybob.blogspot.com/2006/01/gm-ford-nikkei-yield-curve-market-deja.html
Posted by:
The Nattering Naybob |
January 31, 2006 at 12:10 AM


There's a disconnect somewhere. While the borrow-short-lend-long business model built our banking system, some economist somewhere might do well to investigate whether this is still the case. The current model seems to me more like, borrow-low-lend-high. I would think if banks have been unable to raise all the money they want to lend, they would pay higher interest rates. Has anyone but me noticed what banks have been paying their savings account customers, those ones insured by FDIC? Isn't it possible the repeal of Glass-Stegall changed the way banks do business? Think about it. How much of bank profits these days come from credit card divisions. My banks try to push me to invest with their investment arms, outside FDIC. They, then invest (gamble) my money, in Ford Motor Credit & GMAC, taking a pass-through point or two right off the top. If I choose to invest in an FDIC backed savings account, they'll pay me a whopping interest rate of 1% while making car loans at 7%. When in the history of modern banking has the spread between borrowing & lending rates been so wide?