Showing posts with label fractional reserve banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fractional reserve banking. Show all posts

Mar 24, 2023

Robert Aro on the fragility of the banking system

We’ve seen this before: A bank becomes insolvent, whether by ignorance or error.  The Fed saves the financial system by giving the same failed bank more money; this is socialism, it is not capitalism. 

Any system which works great until it collapses, then requires a government/central bank bailout is neither sensical nor sustainable.  Anyone holding a position in academia should not support this; but many do because it works so well for those on top.  So here we are.

~ Robert Aro, "More Supervision and Regulation to Prevent Bank Runs?," Mises.org, March 24, 2023





Mar 17, 2023

Richard Squire on fractional reserve banking and recent bank failures

Banking is inherently risky the way we do it in the developed world, where you have a bank that takes deposits that can leave at any time.  Depositors can demand their money and get it back at any time and then the bank turns around and invests the depositor money in long-term assets, in a 30-year mortgage or a 10-year Treasury bill or a loan to a business that might last a few years.  So this is inherently a rickety structure and when lots of depositors want to pull out their money at the same time, the bank becomes illiquid, it runs out of cash and often it fails.

So what we saw last week at SVB and to a certain extent at Signature [Bank] was a classic bank run.

~ Richard Squire, Fordham University School of Law, Yahoo Finance interview, 0:55 mark, March 17, 2023



Mar 16, 2023

Joel Tillinghast on financial companies

Financial companies are the jackpot for scam artists who want to get their hands on other people's money.  Clients routinely trust banks and brokers with their assets.  For each $1 billion of equity, most banks hold deposits and borrowings in excess of $10 billion.  An electronic record of a loan or security corresponds to another electronic or paper document, not a physical property.  Even if accountants view the physical collateral supporting a loan, they also need to know the other liens and contractual wording.  Often these documents are confidential.  The combination of opaqueness and other people's money may explain why many of the largest fraud cases involve financnial firms.

~ Joel Tillinghast, Big Money Thinks Small, p. 130



Jan 22, 2023

Jeremy Allaire on the difference between stablecoins and bank deposits

FDIC exists, actually, because banks don't hold your money on a full reserve basis.  They take your money and then they lend it out eight times over.  The insurance exists because the banks actually don't have your money.  They've lent it out a bunch of times.  And so it's really a protection if there was a run on the bank that there would be some coverage for people.  Electronic money is much more conservative.  We are required by law to hold one-for-one reserves.

~ Jeremy Allaire, Circle co-founder, Yahoo!Finance interview in Davos, 3:45 mark, January 22, 2023



May 21, 2010

Jim Grant on the Too Big to Fail banking doctrine (1990)

If anything is new about banking in the 1980s, it is the substitution of federal guarantees for the liquidity of individual banks. It is the policy that, even in smaller institutions, depositors will be protected. It is this regulatory sea change that distinguishes the current debt expansion from so many earlier ones. Rothbard’s theory holds that a run-resistant, semi-socialized, fractional reserve banking system is a house of cards. 

~ Jim Grant, "Bring Back the Bank Run," The Free Market, February 1990



Oct 27, 2007

Kevin Duffy on the government printing press

The lure of easy money begins with the government printing press. First, the central banker buys an asset – typically a government debt instrument – writes a check on itself and deposits it into the banking system. Since the bank never "redeems" the check, this is equivalent to creating money out of thin air. The banker, happy to receive fresh "reserves," loans out all but a sliver. This new money ends up back with the banks, is counted again as reserves, mostly lent out, and so on and so on. Through this process of fractional reserve banking, credit is expanded at a multiple of the initial central bank deposit. Through such a system, the creation of money and credit (the promise to pay money) looks like an upside-down pyramid – essentially a pyramid scheme on top of a counterfeiting operation.

As James Grant has counseled, the inflation process gives a finite pool of capital the illusion of an endless sea of liquidity, in effect "turning all the traffic lights green."

Such a scheme is a concoction of government privilege (or mercantilism), not laissez faire. The so-called "capitalists" are no longer efficient allocators of capital to its most productive uses, but beneficiaries of and cheerleaders for a monetary fraud in which capital is debased, taken for granted, and abused. As long as they remain chummy with their friendly liquidity provider of last resort, they can act recklessly without fear of igniting an economic forest fire – or if they do, without fear of having to bear the costs. And as long as the value of their collateral is constantly inflated, they never feel the need to worry about default.

Liberated from the gold standard straightjacket, the system has few restraints. For starters, the counterfeiter has an incentive not to draw attention to his racket. But the effectiveness of his ongoing propaganda campaign has weakened this deterrent. The real inflationary action, however, is in credit expansion. For example, in the last 6 years, the Federal Reserve has grown its balance sheet less than $300 billion while the nation’s money supply has expanded by $4.3 trillion, or 14 times as much. In other words, the central banker can bait the hook, but lenders and borrowers still have to take the bait.

This new money is never evenly distributed, but instead gets funneled into whatever narrow area happens to capture the public’s fascination. As prices and valuations soar, greater doses of credit are required to keep the game going. Either more marginal borrowers are drawn in at ever more precarious levels or greater leverage must be applied to existing borrowers. This is what ultimately doomed the housing bubble. In the end, nearly anyone who could fog a mirror was getting an invitation to join the party.

The trouble with pyramid schemes is that they’re not designed to go in reverse. Eventually, the number of willing dupes is exhausted. The same people who panicked late to get into the game are just as likely to panic when the music stops. The longer the music plays, the more leveraged and unstable the inverted credit pyramid becomes. As the late economist Hyman Minsky observed, "stability is unstable."

~ Kevin Duffy, Bearing Asset Management, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," May 22, 2007