Search results

exactly, why are few other people looking between the lines. Why would you be issuing notes at 7-8% as you stated if it was easy to borrow and lend. Banks are in the business of making profit, and to be honest when it comes to these straight differentials, they are a hell of a lot smarter...

no but borrowers did get discounts to the 'standard variable rate'. How many borrowers got a discount 15 years ago, How many borrowers got a discount now? Consider also the proliferation of the mortgage broker industry over the last 15 years. They also got their cut.

you have just hit the nail on the head about 'ownership' required returns. Your comment is the 'soup base' upon which all Buffett's investment thesis is based. Well done for highlighting it:)

again you are showing your naivety. Yes they are just numbers, because without having some points of comparison, they are just that a number. And PT Bears 3 questions are not 'banal' at all, they provide the essential high level insight into questioning the Banks bleating on funding costs.

You did, but this was pre-GFC times, when the banks were happy to lend at rates closer to the RBA rate, especially with securitisation. Securitisation was great for lowering the spreads. Unfortunately people have woken up to the risks of this.

and how big are these companies, CBA for starters has a market cap of $78 billion. So lets see profit of $6.3billion divided by market cap of $78billion equals an earnings yield of 8%. Pretty much on par with some forms of commercial property. Ah but thats market cap i hear you saying (ie...

or 4. Daz doesnt know what he is talking about. I suspect # 4, especially after UBS's banking analyst went through this very issue. UBS analyst specialising in banking, or DAZ