HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011099.jpg

appetites within the risk-tolerant groups. A broad-based bond index fund would do the same for the risk-averse. It seems to me that the omnibus fund would do both jobs at once, and would attract more clients collectively. Bigger is better for payment processing. The more clients, the more “two-sided” payments from one client to another. These payments are always cheapest. If accounts cost little or nothing to open, vendors would logically need no urging to open them. That again favors the simplicity and economy and immediacy of two- sided payments by including both buyers and sellers within the fund. The omnibus fund is also for everyone as a investor as well as a payer. Very few people have the time or training to beat the market. I myself have not. What we have is a sense of our degree of risk-aversion. The omnibus fund gives the broadest and most flexible coverage of risk appetites. It can poll and advise clients on risk preferences, and mediate hedges and exposures to suit. How the Omnibus Fund Might Evolve I said that if] were a couple of decades younger, I would start an omnibus fund. Not to worry. If the idea holds water, as I think, someone else will. It seems to me that banks could not offer much competition. Demand deposits typically pay no interest, and process payments no better. Omnibus clients offer an infinite range of returns according to client tolerance for risk. Banks offer the advantage of federal deposit insurance (FDIC). It will not be enough. The omnibus fund carries no leverage, and needs no insurance. As it grows, banks will take notice. They can keep up the uneven fight, or they can join the parade. My working assumption is that many will prefer the latter. Banks are well positioned to make the most of the idea. They have the needed expertise and systems and Chapter 8 Banks, Money and Macroeconomics 2/8/16 10 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011099