There is also the question of what would the management of monetary policy look like if big chunks banking deposits ended up back at the Fed. Depositors would flee either in search of yield or to escape a fee for service bank model. If the Fed ever does go back to the no-IOR, scarce reserves regime then banks based on IOR would start to look very risky.

IOR was supposed to be a special circumstance. Saying regulators refuse to allow narrow banks who would rely for income on IOR is proof that regulators want more risk goes too far. This is true of banking, health insurance, Drugs, and nearly all regulated industries. When legislation covering an entire industry is written, the largest firms in that industry get input into the legislation that, if it doesn’t favor them outright it at least doesn’t harm them. I think it’s absolutely true that legislators and regulators want to facilitate the current fractional reserve business model of banking at least as it is practiced by the biggest banks. And when the inevitable happens, there’s a great deal of moral grandstanding. Our political leaders want banks to take risks. The media focuses on mistakes made by bankers and/or regulators, but the banking system is set up to be unstable. You would think that the Fed would welcome narrow banks with open arms.īoth are referring to the fact that the Fed refuses to approve “narrow banks,” which invest their funds in the safest way possible-accounts at the Federal Reserve.

Economists have been calling for narrow banks since at least the 1930s. They pay depositors that interest, less a small profit margin. They take deposits and invest the proceeds in interest-bearing reserves at the Fed. Suppose an entrepreneur came up with a plan for a financial institution that is completely safe - it can never fail, it can never suffer a run, it offers depositors perfect safety with no need for deposit insurance, asset risk regulation, capital requirements, or the rest, and it pays depositors more interest than they can get elsewhere. Is this really true? Do regulators refuse to allow ultra-safe banks? John Cochrane makes the same claim (from a 4-year old blog post): She hates negative vibes, which gives her anxiety.In a recent Reason magazine interview, Lyn Alden makes a very good point:Īnd Lyn Alden, founder of Lyn Alden Investment Strategies, says “banks are basically highly-leveraged bond funds with payment services attached, and we treat it as normal to keep our savings in them.” She argues that the Federal Reserve makes it nearly impossible for banks to hold the bulk of their customers’ deposits in cash because “regulators want banks to be reasonably safe, but not ‘too safe.’ They want all banks to be leveraged bond funds to a certain degree, and won’t allow safer ones to exist.”.curvaceous figures and smoking hot selfies help her to garner million of followers.She first began posting pictures to her Instagram in October of 2012.Her dream is to pet an elephant in Thailand.Lyn Alden enjoys traveling to exotic locales and her favorite destination is Thailand.Her Twitter id is, and Instagram as Her net worth is estimated at $2 million – $3 million. She is active on social media platforms like, Twitter. How much is the net worth of Lyn Alden? She started learning investment books and invested in stocks, and that is how her investment interest came to arise. She focuses on her career rather than involving in controversy. So there are no rumors and controversy regarding her. Furthermore, she keeps her personal life private and doesn’t let the information outside. There is no information about the exact date of the start of their relationship. What is the gender of Lyn Alden? She is straight and not married yet. Lyn Alden Gender, Affair, Dating & Boyfriend Read Also: Kimberly Klacik (Businesswoman) Wiki, Bio Lyn Alden Wiki Lyn Alden Likewise, her gorgeous body measures 34-26-35 inches. How tall is Lyn Alden? She has a height of 5 feet 6 inches.

Lyn alden blockfi