251–260 of 342 posts
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion amidst the pitchforks, but do we not have better things to worry about at the moment? The system is inefficient and unfair, great lets put it on the list of things to fix, but a ~3% fee is not world ending (unlike some other things) and seems like a low priority.
I'd like to see a version of this article and headline that figures out the effort required by the banks to administer a program like this. Quick read looks like 2.8% off the top, for 0 risk (10/349). Total businesses receiving loans was 1.6M ( https://www.pymnts.com/loans/2020/sba-lenders-approval-ppp-l... ) Average money a bank made per loan was 10,000,000,000/1,600,000 (assuming all banks made an equal distributio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That also means that they could have easily waived the fees without taking much of a hit, just out of solidarity.
Businesses are not a charity - according to reported Q1 earnings last week they're losing million of dollars everyday just keeping the lights on. They've lost far more even with the fees they collected from this program. As someone said above - doctors are not working for free, why should bank employees?
Are rank-and-file bank employees getting a big chunk of those increased earnings? Seems like both doctors and bank employees are simply continuing to earn their regular paychecks, as they should. It's the banks' shareholders that are making way more money for basically zero risk. And execs, who get paid mostly in stock. That's the problem here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They offer some things now (deposits, travel cards, etc), but I am not sure they offer actual accounts anymore.
According to their website, they still offer almost everything a traditional bank does. Including personal loans, and mortgages [1]. 1: https://www.postoffice.co.uk/money
Some quick numbers: - 10bn in Fees - 4975 Lenders - $2m per Lender I think this number doesn't seem unreasonable given the fact that the banks themselves are businesses - they have employees, training, technology, risks etc.
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 miss the trust part. I want to transfer big sum of money, essentially my life savings to someone. Who do I choose for the job: - local post office - some crypto mumbo-jumbo that a lot of criminals use - huge institution with daily income five orders of magnitude more than the sum I am talking about, regulated up to a dollar with 100 years of history of earning international trust - some other option ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if you lived with an attitude like this...entitled to something just for being born. Genuinely curious: where does this come from?
Most theories of the good hold that you are certainly entitled to things just for being born - take your life for instance. Your alternative conception is far outside the norm.
Where can more information be found about "theories of the good"? What about this thing we call money - how much are we entitled to and from who?
Can anyone explain what the benefit is of living an existence feeling entitled to something tangible such as money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trump team didn't put in enough money You know, the president doesn't write legislation or appropriate money. That's on Congress.
Yes, because we know exactly where the buck doesn't stop. They're getting ready for round 2, and if the rule setters do the same thing, we'll get the same result. People want to blame the banks -- and banks share the blame -- but they are not the root cause. The legislated rules are like physics, you don't get mad at the water flowing wrong but at the people who planned the river. The planning committee is doing all…
I'd like to see a version of this article and headline that figures out the effort required by the banks to administer a program like this. Quick read looks like 2.8% off the top, for 0 risk (10/349). Total businesses receiving loans was 1.6M ( https://www.pymnts.com/loans/2020/sba-lenders-approval-ppp-l... ) Average money a bank made per loan was 10,000,000,000/1,600,000 (assuming all banks made an equal distributio…
From what I read a number of national banks (eg. BofA, Chase, etc) only offered to loan to customers with previous/existing loans (banks reducing risk). I think they were wary of underwriting risk (even though the USA government made assurances to banks) and risk of perception / reputation risk if any companies they applied on behalf of turned out to defraud the PPP program (possible future reputation damage).
Not a popular opinion but considering the effort involved, should they not have earned fees? Should they have donated their time and resources? I'm sure it took a monumental effort to pull it together with the lack of clarity being handed down and the volume of loans to process in a short period of time. If the government wanted to do for $0 fees they would have figured out how to do it themselves. If a private busin…
Retailers have been forced to invested in 2 meter rule things and, perspex everywhere.
Why can't the Banks of all institutions be expected to, you know, give something back? You'd almost think that money is their core business so they always know how to come out ahead.