Hot answers tagged

15

According to your scenario: A and B are not party to any transactions, so they can be set aside; C borrowed and returned money without incurring interest, so we can set the loan aside as well. That leaves the money C earned and accumulated. In your scenario, that accumulated $900 belongs to C.


13

The act of lending doesn't create money. Before the loan: A = 900 credit B = 900 credit C = ZERO dollar Bank = 1800 liability Result = 0 balance At the moment the loan is made A = 900 credit B = 900 credit C = 900 credit and 900 liability for a net balance of ZERO Bank = 2700 liability and 900 credit for a net balance of 1800 Result = 0 balance During ...


6

Ask yourself: Would you send a check to a random person you met on the internet? Why would you do that? You wouldn't. Unless this was part of some scheme to con the other person out of money. Now ask yourself: Why would a random person that met you on the internet send you a check? Same reason. Only ever accept checks from people when you know where they ...


5

The sort answer is because the banks create money through lending, and bank lending is fundamental to a prosperous economy. They are not allowed to create money to invest in equities or ETFs. Investment banking is funded by a bank's funds available for investing. Perhaps because we have lived through a decade of quantitative easing by the central banks, ...


4

In your question, you note that your aunt has granted you a limited power of attorney over her accounts, with the proviso that you cannot draw money out to pay anyone. If your aunt’s intent is for you to just monitor her accounts, consider getting her to grant you non-value or view-only access to the relevant bank accounts. I’m no lawyer, but it seems that’...


4

In the UK, Lloyds use Sort Codes AND account numbers to identify a specific bank account. Lloyds have the Sort Code Range of 30-00-00 to 39-99-99 available, so they have enough codes for everyone on the planet to have 10 accounts.


3

You are taking the view that taking out the loan creates money. I would argue whether this is actually a useful view to take. But it is a legitimate view, if not a particularly useful one. But if you take that view, then you also need to accept its consequences on the other end. If taking out the loan (and leaving it in your account) creates money, then ...


2

Because of risk. A norma lbank is in the credit business - it is VERY controlled in what risk it can take these days. Investing in Stock ETF is jsut not compatbile with the risk profile a bank (which is EXTREMELY highly leveraged) can take.


2

My question is: Is this legal? The issue for you is will those cash transactions cause your banker to contact the government about a suspicious set of transactions. Daily cash transactions if they are near the reporting limit might cause them to wonder. Your bank might feel that you are running a business out of a non-businessa count and want you to get a ...


2

We have a similar system in Australia, and I’m using that as a basis to answer your question. There are 3 relationships involved in the transaction: Bank and retailer - your R receipt is the retailer’s proof that you authorised the card transaction. Retailer and you - your C receipt is your proof of purchase. Bank and you - your B receipt (duplicate of R) ...


1

Take a simple example of a bank that is able to led 5x its deposits to lend as standard home mortgages (leverage is much more complex than this in modern banks but does fine for a toy example). Assuming they pay 1% on these deposits and loan out at 3% and no one defaults. For every $100 deposited the bank makes: -$1 in interest paid to the depositors ($100 ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible