Are banks really making less profit when interest rates are low?
profit has nothing to do with the level of interest rates. Is this correct? In theory, yes. The difference that you're getting at is called net interest margin. As long as this stays constant, so does the bank's profit. According to this article: As long as the interest rate charged on loans doesn't decline faster than the interest rate received on deposit accounts, banks can continue to operate normally or even reduce their bad loan exposure by offering lower lending rates to already-proven borrowers. So banks may be able to acquire the same net interest margin with lower risk. However the article also mentions new research from a federal agency: Their findings show that net interest margins (NIMs) get worse during low-rate environments, defined as any time when a country's three-month sovereign bond yield is less than 1.25%. So in theory banks should remain profitable when interest rates are low, but this may not actually be the case. I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time.  When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans.  The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates.  When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount.  On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate.  If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr.  The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322.  If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972.  That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost. "Banks make less profit when ""long"" rates are low compared to ""short"" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) ""short term"" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money."
I'd prefer having it (more or less) fluent at any time, if possible... And the Swiss National Bank (SNB) will do their darndest to make this a costly option. That's exactly the point of negative interest rates. They don't want to help you saving money. So you will have to choose what to give up: liquidity, or profitability.  But for now, you still have alternatives. The way you described it one could think that all banks will soon start to charge all their clients. That's just a distortion of facts.  If you are happy with a (close to) 0 income, you might consider opening multiple bank accounts. Many banks charge the negative interest only from certain thresholds (i.e. CHF 100k). Since you're clearly a Swiss resident, that's easy to do for you.  If you don't want to give up making an income, then you have to sacrifice liquidity. There simply aren't any short term (less than 2-3 years) instruments in Swiss Franc that are both safe and yielding a positive income. Which means that you will have to take much more risk then you had with a savings account. Ask your advisor for an investment proposal, but also consider bank independent advisors. "The short answer is: banks are less concerned about the interest earned on any single mortgage than they are for the interest earned over time from a collection of mortgages. Let's look at a repayment schedule for a 30-year mortgage at 4% for $100,000. (source: http://web5.vlending.com/loancenter-calculators-amort.aspx. Any mortgage calculator should produce a similar schedule, however.) A few things to note: The interest due in the last 6 years is less than the interest due in the first year alone. Banks are getting a disproportionate amount of the expected interest up front. Banks can make multiple loans; the money collected from existing borrowers can be aggregated to make new loans before the old ones are paid off, and those new loans start, of course, at the interest-heavy end of the repayment schedule. Suppose the bank lends out $1,000,000 to 10 borrowers. In the first two years, they will collect a total of $114588.90 from the 10 borrowers in principal and interest. That's enough to make an additional loan to an 11th borrower while keeping $14,588.90 as ""profit"". The new borrower is making payments at the year-one rate. A bank may lose a little interest on a single loan that gets repaid early, but that is generally made up by the fact that a new loan can be issued that much sooner as a result." When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations. "Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates.  For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit.  This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added ""protection"", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event.  This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds.  This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure.  While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency.  This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be ""swept"" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts." but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick   to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that. Interactive Brokers advertises the percent of profitable forex accounts for its own customers and for competitors. They say they have 46.9% profitable accounts which is higher than the other brokers listed. It's hard to say exactly how this data was compiled- but I think the main takeaway is that if a broker actually advertises that most accounts lose money, it is probably difficult to make money. It may be better for other securities because forex is considered a very tough market for retail traders to compete in.  https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Ftrading%2Fpdfhighlights%2FPDF-Forex.php In case you didn't see over the past few years, especially in banks, falling stock prices often lead to ratings downgrades. The logic is that a bank who's stock price is low, or falling, is suffering from a decrease in their ability to tap the equity markets in times of need.  With less ability to tap the equity markets in times of need, this means it is less likely the bank can raise funds to pay off debt, and thus, makes their debt more risky.   It's unfair for me to imply a 100% causal relationship here, because that's not the case, but each of the markets interact with each other in some way. You will at least notice that, whether leading or trailing, companies that have a decreasing stock price also often have a decreasing credit rating.  You'll also notice that stocks which slip under $5 often times get put on credit watch.   The logic could go any which way around the circle, but a company that cuts its dividend may lose some investors who were in it for the dividend. This can cause stock price to fall. Credit agencies, depending on the situation, may approve of companies that cut their dividend (more cash to pay off debt), or, may indicate the dividend cut is not enough to make up for the company's falling profits.   In the absence of full information, a cut in the dividend is often seen as a sign of weakness or a sign of tough times for the company in the future. Companies which have changes in dividend are looked at as less stable, more unpredictable, blah blah blah.   Again, I'm not implying a 100% causal relationship here, but, each of these markets work with each other somehow, and a bank which cuts its dividend may be expecting lower profitability, slower growth, need the funds to cover lawsuit payouts or settlements with insert-regulatory-agency, or any number of other situations. In the UK at least, we have Credit Unions. Credit Unions are not-for-profit organisations that don't pay interest on your balance, but instead give you a share of their profits at the end of the year (or at least my local branch do). This normally equates to around 1% of my balance.