Talk:Tier 1 capital

Unnecessary link

To my way of thinking, there is not much point in including a link ("10 largest banking groups by tier 1 capital at the end of 2004") that redirects the user to the subscription-only section that is The Economist's premium content web-site. I have not removed the link out of hand, since I may be missing something obvious. Just thought I'd comment. Extenebris 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried cleaning up a bit but the article still sucks. I don't have any references so I couldn't really expand on anything but I did remove some unnecessary and incorrect stuff.
Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maths issues

Not to be picky, but 10% of $11.10 is $1.11, not $1.10 as stated 160.83.57.38 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Example meaningful?

I love your simple example: » … assume a bank with $2 of equity receives a client deposit of $10 and lends out all $10 … « – But is it meaningful? Today deposits don’t pay into the »equity capital« any more. So why not leave out all about the deposit? Banks create money, with no regard to deposits. Or am I wrong? – Fritz Jörn (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it directly caught my attention too... its somehow misleading, cause it implicates that you only can give out a loan when another client deposited that money before, but that's not the case. So I deleted the deposit and now it's much more clear I think. (Grüße aus Düsseldorf nach Bonn. ;-) - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)