Bank of America cannot afford it's inventory. These number are ridiculous. Trillions and billions are hideous numbers to throw around like it is real.

March 9, 2016
By John Maxfield

...The same is true for Bank of America, (click here) which strives to drive down its cost of funds as far as possible. One way to do so is to collect a lot of deposits. Last year, for instance, Bank of America held an average of $1.16 trillion worth of customer deposits. That was second only to Wells Fargo, which held an average of $1.19 trillion worth of deposits.

The benefit of deposits is that they're cheap. Bank of America paid only 0.12% in interest on $735 billion worth of its deposits. And it paid no interest at all on the remaining $421 billion, which consisted of demand deposits held by customers in noninterest-bearing checking accounts.

But even though Bank of America's deposit franchise is the envy of most other banks, it lags Wells Fargo's in one important respect: deposits account for 67% of Bank of America's total funding source compared to 76% for Wells Fargo. This helps explain why Wells Fargo paid less than $4 billion last year to borrow $1.6 trillion worth of funds while it cost Bank of America $10.5 billion to borrow only slightly more, or $1.7 trillion.

A second explanation for this disparity is the fact that Bank of America faces a significantly higher interest rate on its long-term debt than Wells Fargo does. Last year, Bank of America paid $6 billion to borrow $240 billion worth of long-term debt. That equates to an interest rate of 2.48%. Wells Fargo, meanwhile, paid $2.6 billion for $185 billion in long-term debt, equating to an interest rate of 1.4%....