It is a fact that the federal government (1) encouraged the development of the savings and loan industry, (2) virtually forced the industry to make long-term fixed-interest-rate mortgages, and (3) forced the savings and loans to obtain most of their capital as deposits that were withdrawable on demand. a. Would the savings and loans have higher profits in a world with a "normal" or an inverted yield curve? Explain your answer. b. Would the savings and loan industry be better off if the individual institutions sold their mortgages to federal agencies and then collected servicing fees or if the institutions held the mortgages that they originated?

A) yes they would have a higher income

B) depending on the situation

Explanation:

A) With such a "standard" yield curve, Savings & Loans will have a greater net income. In such a scenario, your quick-term liabilities (deposits) will be smaller than that of the lengthy-term yields emitted by your assets (mortgages). We would therefore have a successful "distribution."

B) Strong inflation increases interest rates throughout the yield curve. If the growth were high, short-term rates could be higher than the long-term interest rates that reigned before the inflation rise. Since then, when interest rates were lower, the majority of fixed-rate mortgage loans was initiated, the savings & loan deposits (liabilities) cost more than yields on resources. If this continues for any period, the Savings & Loans stock (reserves) will be emptied to the extent that bankruptcy would not be prevented by a "bailout.". In reality, in the United States, this has occurred. So it'd be easier for Savings & loand to sell their mortgages to federal agencies and receive service fees in this case than to keep the mortgages originating from them.