Comments

  1. Hi Karl,
    Quinn says that this would only apply to ‘existing banks and for a three year period’. Is this a way of encouraging new banks to enter the market? Or what am I missing here? Thanks for the great article. Aidan

    • Karl Deeter

      My starting point is that all things ‘temporary’ often become permanent. Look no further than the ‘temporary’ income and health levy. They did ‘go’ but they became USC (just add them together and you get the USC rate) which doesn’t go away. Doing this for three years would actually discourage new entrants because they won’t want to enter a market that has price fixing on the way in. Imagine you are a lender and you are thinking of opening your business here and charging 3.8% at which you’ll make some good money and cover your entry costs. Then you are told you ‘have to’ charge 3.2%? What will you do? Stay out… Often good intentions come with unintended consequences that you can’t predict, but in this case it’s obvious from the outset.

Leave a Comment to aidan

Awesome! You've decided to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated.

*