<p>For a bank , the basic choice of assets is between (a) loans to customers (b) invest in financial asset such as government bond (c) deposits with the central bank.  Note that (c) may return a negative interest rate, so (b) may be better than (c).  Holding a large amount of physical cash in the vault is not practical for a bank of any decent size, due to the cost of storage and insurance.  It would also be discouraged by the bank regulators , because it would frustrate the negative interest rate policy the central bank is trying to apply.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-11T12:08:47.827Z
A few issues with this. 1) Government pays printing cost, not private sector. 2) Central bank does not have the legal ability to “ban” such an activity. At best, bank regulators could make it known that they are unhappy. However, this would not deter non-banks. 3) There were discussions around a cash-backed ETF in the euro area. Not sure why it was never launched, but security concerns seemed to be the biggest problem. Very hard to get insurance,
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-11T23:33:53.117Z
Editing to take into account @Brian Romanchuk comments
dm63
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-11T10:17:03.087Z
2020-10-11T23:35:08.717Z
2020-10-11T23:35:08.717Z
dm63
<p>I know commercial banks need to meet liquidity requirements, but why would they choose to invest their money in an instrument that is guaranteed to give them a negative return, instead of just keeping their clients' money in "cash"?</p>

<p>Is there some legislation forcing them to use government bonds?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-11T02:29:04.767Z
Possible duplicate of [Why lower the deposit rate if it is already negative?](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/10420/why-lower-the-deposit-rate-if-it-is-already-negative)
Art
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-11T08:55:27.730Z
Is it really just storage costs in a world of mostly digital money?
andresp
<interest-rate><banking>
Why do commercial banks buy government bonds at negative interest rates instead of keeping cash?
andresp
# Why do commercial banks buy government bonds at negative interest rates instead of keeping cash?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-10)

I know commercial banks need to meet liquidity requirements, but why would they choose to invest their money in an instrument that is guaranteed to give them a negative return, instead of just keeping their clients' money in "cash"?

Is there some legislation forcing them to use government bonds?

**Tags:** interest-rate, banking
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Possible duplicate of [Why lower the deposit rate if it is already negative?](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/10420/why-lower-the-deposit-rate-if-it-is-already-negative)  
> **username_0**: Is it really just storage costs in a world of mostly digital money?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-09-11. Score: 2

For a bank , the basic choice of assets is between (a) loans to customers (b) invest in financial asset such as government bond (c) deposits with the central bank. Note that (c) may return a negative interest rate, so (b) may be better than (c). Holding a large amount of physical cash in the vault is not practical for a bank of any decent size, due to the cost of storage and insurance. It would also be discouraged by the bank regulators , because it would frustrate the negative interest rate policy the central bank is trying to apply.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: A few issues with this. 1) Government pays printing cost, not private sector. 2) Central bank does not have the legal ability to “ban” such an activity. At best, bank regulators could make it known that they are unhappy. However, this would not deter non-banks. 3) There were discussions around a cash-backed ETF in the euro area. Not sure why it was never launched, but security concerns seemed to be the biggest problem. Very hard to get insurance,  
> **username_2**: Editing to take into account @Brian Romanchuk comments  

---

