What does quantitative easing 2 mean for my bank account?
QE2 will mean that there are about $500 billion dollars in existence which weren't there before. These dollars will all be competing with the existing dollars for real goods and services, so each dollar will be worth a little less, and prices will rise a little. This is inflation. You can probably expect 1.5%-2% annual inflation for the US dollar over the next several years (the market certainly does in the aggregate, anyway). This is in terms of US-based goods and services. QE2 will also reduce the amount of other currencies you can get for the same dollar amount. The extent to which this will occur is less clear, in part because other currencies are also considering quantitative easing. Your long-term savings should probably not be in cash anyway, because of the low returns; this will probably affect you far more than the impact of quantitative easing. As for your savings which do remain in cash, what you should do with them depends on how you plan to dispose of them. The value of a currency is usually pretty stable in terms of the local economy's output of goods and services - it's the value in international trade which tends to fluctuate wildly. If you keep your savings in the same currency you plan to spend them in, they should be able to maintain their value decently well in the intermediate term. IMO, QE2 will likely have no perceptible impact in the near term. Keeping all of your savings in a bank guarantees that you will lose money to inflation & taxes. I'd suggest consulting a financial advisor -- preferably someone who understands issues facing someone with assets in the US and Canada. In terms of what portion of your savings should be in USD vs. CAD, that's going to depend on your situation. I'd probably want more assets in the place that I'm living in for the next several years. Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.
"he is saying that ""QE"" meaning ""quantitative easing"" meaning ""the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks"" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up.  It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years ""QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!""" If you're willing to use OFX or QIF files, most Canadian banks can spit output more data than 90 days. The files are typically used to import into Quicken-like local programs, but can be easily parsed for your webapp, I imagine. "From the banks point of view the point of a current account like this is to get you as a regular customer. They want to be your ""main bank"", the bank you interact with the most, the bank you turn to first when you need financial products and services, the bank whose advertising you see every time you log into online banking or walk into a branch. The bank knows that if they just offer the unprofitablly high interest rate or other perks with no strings attatched that people will open the account and dump a bunch of savings in it but won't actually move their financial life over, their old bank will still be their main bank. So they attatch strings like a required minimum deposit, a minimum number of direct debits and similar. These have minimal effect on people actually using the account as their main current account while being a pain for people trying to game the system. Of course as you point out it is still possible to game the system but they don't need to make gaming the system impossible, they just need to make it inconvianiant enough that most people won't bother." "You've asked eleven different questions here.  Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time.  Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them.  You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you.  I recommend that you use your ""other eight hours per day"" to build up other income streams.  That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe.  It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy.  The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life)." What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate.   Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets). Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore.  I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months.  Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too. "Suppose you have $100 today and suppose that hamburgers cost $5. If you are holding $100, you could buy 20 hamburgers at $5 each. Now suppose you take that $100 and stuff it under your mattress for 24 years. When you pull out your money, you still have $100, but it turns out hamburgers now cost $10.   The increase from $5 to $10 is inflation.   Your savings of $100 was ""eroded"" by half even though before and after you had $100 and now you can only buy 10 hamburgers instead of 20 hamburgers. Suppose inflation is 3%.   That means that if you earn 3% return on your investments, you'll stay even with inflation (If you can buy 20 hamburgers today, then at any point you can still buy 20 hamburgers).   If you want your money to grow in a real, tangible way you'll want to seek returns that beat the rate of inflation." "While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of ""hypothetical"" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't).  Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming." "Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are the guys in Switzerland that came up with the Basel accords and gave us fun things like Capital Adequacy Ratios and kept bankers constipated for the last decade.  It seems According to them, the bankers have been up to no good again and have been engaging in bank to bank currency swaps and derivative swaps in a manner that has allowed them to by pass regulatory safe guards and hide the debt off balance sheet, and a situation is occurring where they have to pay back their debt before the debt that is owed to them matures and that could lead to a credit crunch and liquidity crisis.  The trigger they feel for this could be a rise in inflation in the US which would lead to the Fed raising rates or an unforeseen shock to the dollar that would tighten the market.   ""Signs of excess are visible everywhere. “Corporate debt is now considerably higher than it was pre-crisis. Leverage indicators have reached levels reminiscent of those that prevailed during previous corporate credit booms. A growing share of firms face interest expenses exceeding earnings before interest and taxes,” said the report.  Up shit creek and its in danger of popping" "The point here is actually about banks, or is in reference to banks. They expect you know how a savings account at a bank works, but not mutual funds, and so are trying to dispel an erroneous notion that you might have -- that the CBIC will insure your investment in the fund.  Banks work by taking in deposits and lending that money out via mortgages. The mortgages can last up to 30 years, but the deposits are ""on demand"". Which means you can pull your money out at any time.  See the problem? They're maintaining a fiction that that money is there, safe and sound in the bank vault, ready to be returned whenever you want it, when in fact it's been loaned out. And can't be called back quickly, either. They know only a little bit of that money will be ""demanded"" by depositors at any given time, so they keep a percentage called a ""reserve"" to satisfy that, er, demand.  The rest, again, is loaned out. Gone.  And usually that works out just fine. Except sometimes it doesn't, when people get scared they might not get their money back, and they all go to the bank at the same time to demand their on-demand deposits back. This is called a ""run on the bank"", and when that happens, the bank ""fails"". 'Cause it ain't got the money.  What's failing, in fact, is the fiction that your money is there whenever you want it. And that's really bad, because when that happens to you at your bank, your friends the customers of other banks start worrying about their money, and run on their banks, which fail, which cause more people to worry and try to get their cash out, lather, rinse repeat, until the whole economy crashes. See -- The Great Depression.  So, various governments introduced ""Deposit Insurance"", where the government will step in with the cash, so when you panic and pull all your money out of the bank, you can go home happy, cash in hand, and don't freak all your friends out. Therefore, the fear that your money might not really be there is assuaged, and it doesn't spread like a mental contagion. Everyone can comfortably go back to believing the fiction, and the economy goes back to merrily chugging along.  Meanwhile, with mutual funds & ETFs, everyone understands the money you put in them is invested and not sitting in a gigantic vault, and so there's no need for government insurance to maintain the fiction.  And that's the point they're trying to make.  Poorly, I might add, where their wording is concerned." It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want.  Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe.   Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD.  The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates. It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed.  https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q  My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI. This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it. If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing.  If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt. I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.