![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Convoluted thoughts about regulatory frameworks
Halifax will sell me a 3-month bond paying 6.85%, a 6-month bond paying 6.5%, a 1-year bond paying 6.45%, a 3-year bond paying 6.4%, or a 5-year bond paying 6.2%.
I thought that longer terms were supposed to be rewarded by better interest rates; on the other hand, why shouldn't I jump at this?
If I assume that Halifax would rather borrow money on the money-markets, where LIBOR is 6.61%, than through the time-consuming process of assembling small sums from thousands of tiny savers, then I conclude that the money markets want to charge Halifax perceptibly more than 6.85%. I think that this means that they believe there is a chance of perceptibly more than 0.89% [(6.85 / 6.61) ^ (3/12)] that Halifax will be unable to repay.
On the other hand, I'm a small saver, and the regulatory framework likes small savers. If Lloyds lend Halifax fifteen million pounds, and Halifax goes bust, Lloyds get nothing back. If I lend Halifax fifteen thousand pounds, and Halifax goes bust, I get £13,700 back. So I should be more willing to lend Halifax money than Lloyds is - indeed, since the money is otherwise making 5.8%, I should lend it to Halifax if I believe the odds of Halifax still being around in mid-February are better than about 20:1 for.
This seems somehow counter-intuitive; on the other hand, I will go off to the local Halifax tomorrow with a chequebook. There is then the question of hedging: I wonder what odds the local Ladbrokes will offer on Halifax being bust by mid-February?
I thought that longer terms were supposed to be rewarded by better interest rates; on the other hand, why shouldn't I jump at this?
If I assume that Halifax would rather borrow money on the money-markets, where LIBOR is 6.61%, than through the time-consuming process of assembling small sums from thousands of tiny savers, then I conclude that the money markets want to charge Halifax perceptibly more than 6.85%. I think that this means that they believe there is a chance of perceptibly more than 0.89% [(6.85 / 6.61) ^ (3/12)] that Halifax will be unable to repay.
On the other hand, I'm a small saver, and the regulatory framework likes small savers. If Lloyds lend Halifax fifteen million pounds, and Halifax goes bust, Lloyds get nothing back. If I lend Halifax fifteen thousand pounds, and Halifax goes bust, I get £13,700 back. So I should be more willing to lend Halifax money than Lloyds is - indeed, since the money is otherwise making 5.8%, I should lend it to Halifax if I believe the odds of Halifax still being around in mid-February are better than about 20:1 for.
This seems somehow counter-intuitive; on the other hand, I will go off to the local Halifax tomorrow with a chequebook. There is then the question of hedging: I wonder what odds the local Ladbrokes will offer on Halifax being bust by mid-February?
no subject
Bear in mind that Nationwide are still offering 6.70% for 1 year. Also, unless you've already filled your ISA limit, there are ISAs on offer that work out as a better deal after taking tax off.
Remember that LIBOR is an average; I don't know what the notional risk-free rate is, but it'll be less than 6.61%.
I don't really understand this stuff despite working for a group most of whose members have it as their job to know it; but I don't think your exponentiation is correct - the risk of them being bust in 3 months is more than the risk of them being bust in 1 month^3.
That rate may well also have an element of them drawing in money that will then be likely to be be left with them afterwards.
no subject
The FSCS site says that they will compensate 100% up to 35k.
Northern Rock deposits appear to be 100% guaranteed to infinity, even newly-opened ones; on the other hand, to pick a 6.71% one-year bond from NR over a 6.70% one-year bond from Nationwide indicates a level of risk-return preference which would predict that I'd spend all my weekends skydiving and be lackadaisical as to whether I remembered the parachute or not.
no subject
no subject