Live data from Hacker News

Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

npr.org

211–220 of 342 posts

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#211
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paperwork AND doing due diligence on the companies more effectively than the government can right now.

The point is the amount they are earning is overly generous for the work completed. Most banks are only working with existing customers, so the DD is 99% complete. Few are reviewing applications from brand new clients.

Even then, SME clients don't do operations (like loan applications) with their banks every month, so that doesn't mean the DD is up to date (bank regulations change almost on a weekly basis).

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#212
post #205
post #38

The thing here is the bank isn’t taking any risk here. All the loans are guaranteed by the government. So banks are really just a middle man that is transferring money from the SBA to a small business’s bank account and taking on zero credit risk. The government has the ability to send funds directly to people obviously...that’s how they are sending the stimulus checks and send tax refunds. Banks are basically being…

I believe it is not taking any credit risk but it is still taking a fraud risk and I assume still needs to meet its KYC obligations. Plus the documentation and operational needs. Anyone who works in the financial industry knows that client onboarding is painful.

That’s why most banks are only approving applications from existing business customers.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if we had the central bank give everyone an account Single point of failure. Single point of power seizure. Single point of abuse for policy/NSA/FBI/DEA/BATF/CIA. As an alternative: Each bank must speak a common language for transactions as part of their charter, aka "ACH". The task to accomplish what you wish simply becomes "Improve ACH to realtime, rather than batch" and a bunch of our problems go away. Furt…

It's not a single point of failure, it's giving people the option to not bank through a private bank. Private banks already get a bank account with the government (the Central Bank), why shouldn't individuals have that same option?

I'm not even sure if central banking will last much longer before collapsing under the seemingly unlimited requests for funding. I notice that people want to pretend like laws of supply and demand don't exist and that everything can be fixed with the money printer. I think this does not bode well for our future in general.

The reason to reject having a central bank having direct tentacles into your life is the same reason you don't have the FBI run your email and wireless phone provider. Once you give them that sort of power, they'll start telling you exactly what you can spend your money on, under the auspices of "stimulating the economy". It's a central planning draconian nightmare.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#214
post #38

The thing here is the bank isn’t taking any risk here. All the loans are guaranteed by the government. So banks are really just a middle man that is transferring money from the SBA to a small business’s bank account and taking on zero credit risk. The government has the ability to send funds directly to people obviously...that’s how they are sending the stimulus checks and send tax refunds. Banks are basically being…

The bank is taking all of the AML / KYC risk for all of these loans by law, which is costlier / riskier than you’d expect. Further, they’re taking a giant risk that they did paperwork in line with a massive government program that was rolled out extremely quickly without guidance or details. $10B seems like a pretty low number for this risk plus the cost of servicing the loans over time.

That’s why most banks are only approving loans for their existing customers. All of that onboarding work is already done in that case.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#215

Gotta ask whether the banking system makes sense in its current form. - Part of it is actually a utility. Payments, sending money from one place to another, making sure there's an account at the other end of that number. Everyone needs this, yet being a huge international network there isn't a whole lot that one bank offers that another cannot. - Part of it is deciding who to lend money to. Makes sense for the bank t…

> We don't want money laundering Can you explain this? It's never made any sense, at all. 1. If you earn excess unreported income, eventually the IRS will figure it out and come get their cut. 2. If you earn it through criminal means, you're already committing a crime for which, if caught, you will be punished. Why is the act of obfuscating the source of income a crime? Who gets harmed by this, that isn't already har…

also, it seems to me that current money laundering didn't really exist before the early 70s

a series of legislations right around the time of declaration of war against drugs (91st USA congress) pretty much made 'money laundering' a thing

prior to that, during the prohibition era it wasn't called money laundering yet it was simple tax evasion.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#216

Gotta ask whether the banking system makes sense in its current form. - Part of it is actually a utility. Payments, sending money from one place to another, making sure there's an account at the other end of that number. Everyone needs this, yet being a huge international network there isn't a whole lot that one bank offers that another cannot. - Part of it is deciding who to lend money to. Makes sense for the bank t…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Num...

Today's banking, tomorrow is Telcos, the day after...

What if the problem is the lobbying?

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#217

Gotta ask whether the banking system makes sense in its current form. - Part of it is actually a utility. Payments, sending money from one place to another, making sure there's an account at the other end of that number. Everyone needs this, yet being a huge international network there isn't a whole lot that one bank offers that another cannot. - Part of it is deciding who to lend money to. Makes sense for the bank t…

> We don't want money laundering Can you explain this? It's never made any sense, at all. 1. If you earn excess unreported income, eventually the IRS will figure it out and come get their cut. 2. If you earn it through criminal means, you're already committing a crime for which, if caught, you will be punished. Why is the act of obfuscating the source of income a crime? Who gets harmed by this, that isn't already har…

If you make money laundering easy it becomes much easier to commit crimes and keep your gains, while the volume of the payoff gets much higher.

If drug dealers in the 80s could have started hedge funds (or even deposit funds legally) with their shoeboxes of cash, it would’ve been an even crazier ball game.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#218
post #64

Bank charging 2% on this flow is criminal, in the sense that interest rates are nearly negative, so 2% is practically 10, 100X the rates banks can earn otherwise. It's basically free money shoveled into banks, a massive boon.

If a business were to go and get one of these "nearly negative" loans from a bank, what would they pay in fees?

Do you know?

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#219
post #193
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re describing “narrow” banks. While they make sense for consumers, our banking system is tightly coupled with another: mortgages. The money that you deposit is loaned out. Could the federal government do the too? Sure, and the government (talking about the US here) does end up owning a large chunk of mortgages via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the expertise and the manpower around vetting the mortgages is a _lo…

> But the expertise and the manpower around vetting the mortgages is a _lot_ of work. Not to be snarky, but the Great Recession didn't give me a lot of confidence in the expertise involved in vetting mortgages.

This is correct. I worked in real estate prior to the collapse. By 2006, Bank of America and others had already moved to an entirely automated appraisal process and people were able to get loans in excess of 35% of their monthly income no problem.

Re: Small business rescue earned banks $10B in fees

#220

Gotta ask whether the banking system makes sense in its current form. - Part of it is actually a utility. Payments, sending money from one place to another, making sure there's an account at the other end of that number. Everyone needs this, yet being a huge international network there isn't a whole lot that one bank offers that another cannot. - Part of it is deciding who to lend money to. Makes sense for the bank t…

You outline the problem very well. The banking sector has an ENORMOUS amount of power over the economy/society in a way that no other industry does because it literally has the ability to create money out of thin air (by loaning it into existence). The banking industry is the arbiter and credit in our society and decides where money get allocated.

This would be fine if it were their own money, but it's not - it's our bank accounts (ie. fractional reserve banking). Unfortunately individuals can't opt out of this because unlike private banks, individuals aren't allowed to open a bank account directly with the government (though these replies show that this is possible in countries like France).

The finance industry does not generate real wealth, it is a wealth extracting industry that profits off the spread between the interest rate decided by the central bank and the interest rates and fees it charges consumers. Banks do not create goods or services, they just decide who gets the money to do so, with money that's not theirs. 80% of bank credit goes to mortgage loans (driving up housing prices and saddling homeowners in debt). Banks have gone from 2% of the U.S. economy in the 1950s to 8% by 2008, and 1.5% of the British economy in 1978 to 15% by 2008.

The first step to fixing this is to give citizens the ability to opt out of private banks and bank directly with the central bank. Private banks should not be the only ones with this privilege.

Post reply on HN