The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But how does this become more valuable than the sum of its parts?
European Tribune - Comments - Real Estate Meltdown!
The money they lent you was obtained from depositors.
It was not.
Banks create credit (by creating electronic obligations) based upon an amount of "regulatory Capital" set by the Bank of International Settlements in Basel.
This credit is >97% of the money in existence (the rest being notes and coin), and the greater part of it is "secured" or "asset-backed" eg by mortgages.
The money created by Banks comprises firstly loans ie money lent at interest; secondly, money created to pay their overheads/costs (eg staff); and any excess is paid out as dividends. Any defaults immediately eat up the Bank's capital base.
Where the misapprehension comes from is that when a loan is created an equal and opposite deposit is created, which very often is instantaneously transferred elsewhere in the system, and this means that Banks do in fact need to "fund" themselves by attracting deposits either "wholesale" or "retail".
There is then a balance of central bank "reserves" aka "high powered money" which affects how much Banks can lend in practice.
One of the problems has been that there has been - courtesy of the "Anglo Disease" - a secular decline in "retail" deposits and a commensurate increase in "wholesale" deposits.
That was fine - and indeed Northern Rock built a very successful business on it - for as long as "wholesale" interbank lending was active.
But it's dried up, and therefore only the Central Bank can make up the shortfall as "lenders of last resort".
The point is that money is created as loans and then redeposited back into the system: not vice versa, as most people think.
The bank made money by paying interest to the depositors which was less than they charged to borrowers.
Indeed, that is a Credit Institution's business model, and it is also a Credit Union's model. The difference is that a Bank/ Credit Institution is able to multiply or "leverage" its income, whereas a Credit Union cannot.
As I point out in my Peak Credit Diaries, the real value provided by a Credit Institution is that of its implicit Guarantee of the borrower's credit, and Banks became accustomed to "outsourcing" this guarantee to investors through securitisation, credit derivatives and credit insurance.
The result was that a bigger "Capital base" (Banks' Capital plus Investors' Capital) was then able to support a bigger pyramid of credit than Banks alone were able to.
Unfortunately, that capital base has evaporated in two ways: firstly, the Investors have retreated, and secondly the banks' own Capital has been ravaged.
The system is therefore irretrievably fucked, and is in slow motion collapse.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae are Credit Institutions writ large, and THEY outsourced their Guarantee to the US government.
As long as speculators seek 15% return in a world where real returns are 4% the system has to be unstable. Either someone is getting fleeced, or they will be shortly.
You conclude by putting your finger on the key point. That of people's expectations, which are themselves perverted by the phenomenon of inflation.
Firstly, we have to distinguish between:
(a) "Cost of Capital" - ie the rights to streams of productive value, such as land rental values and energy; and
(b)"Cost of Credit" - comprising system costs (ie banks' reasonable operating costs) and defaults.
The two get conflated because our Money actually is (but need not be) Credit/ Debt.
In fact, I think that the "true" market clearing price of Capital for a "risk free" real return is probably 1% or less, since "productive capital has gradually expanded from being purely land, through machinery and buildings, to a new category of "Intellectual" property.
As the Capital stock has grown, we have seen its cost decline from 25% pa in Babylonian times, through 10% pa in medieval times and 5% pa at the dawn of the industrial revolution to maybe 0.5 to 1.0% pa today.
If you want a greater return than that, you're going to have to take risks.
On the other hand, Credit costs nothing to create, and the true "Cost" over time of unsecured credit aka "time to pay" necessary for the operation of the economy and creation of productive assets has probably never been more than 2% pa.
As for inflation, the causes of inflation are:
(a) deficit financing, both fiscal (caused by government) and monetary (caused by "fractional reserve" banking); and
(b) "Equity" financing and the "For Profit" legal entity - because the maintenance of "profits" is as much a "cause" of inflation as the maintenance of real wage levels. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
What we do agree on is that the present system is a Ponzi scheme, we just differ on where the extra money flowing into the pyramid is coming from.
You haven't explained, for example, why Freddie and Fannie needed to be created. I claim it was because traditional banks couldn't attract enough capital due to their constraints how much profit they could make.
If you have another explanation, I missed it in your remarks. It is also a detail whether banks get their working capital from depositors directly or from inter-bank deals which are just intermediaries to the ultimate depositors.
The multiplicative effect of fractional reserves is a big talking point among the right wing libertarians in the US right now, but their alternatives don't make much sense - we are not going back to a gold standard.
This week Merrill sold $33 billion of mortgage-backed instruments for $7 billion and lent the buyer $5 billion to make the purchase. Obviously these bonds were not based upon actual assets, no part of the housing market is experiencing an 80% loss rate.
I'm assuming that firms borrowed 10% and then used this to issue bonds with a 100% nominal value, this is what Jay Gould did in his heyday. It's just plain old fraud. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
You do realize that very few people agree with your framing of the way finance works.
The framing is dependent on the assumptions, and I am well aware that mine are unconventional, but that does not make them "right" or "wrong".
But leaving the framing to one side - which is a matter of "paradigm" - where exactly am I wrong in relation to the mechanics of how the current system works?
You say that Deposits lead to Loans: if that were the case, there could be no new money, since interest-bearing Debt created by Credit Institutions is our money, which is a fact people may not like having pointed out, but a fact nonetheless..
rdf:
You haven't explained, for example, why Freddie and Fannie needed to be created.
I didn't because I hadn't considered the point, which was remiss of me. From your concluding remark re rates of return, I think you are probably right on the button.
It is also a detail whether banks get their working capital from depositors directly or from inter-bank deals which are just intermediaries to the ultimate depositors.
A "detail"?
The entire system is falling down around our ears because of this "detail" of wholesale credit intermediation.
...and I thought the Brits were the masters of understatement!
It always has been, and that view goes way back to silver dollars, the "Cross of Gold" and all the rest, over a hundred years ago.
It represents a profound misunderstanding of how the system works, as I think you and I agree.
I'm proposing what would be de facto monetisation of land rental values and energy value through the pervasive and networked spread and use of "Peer to Peer" investment within frameworks other than "the Corporation".
ie a variation on a "Debt/Equity" swap.
These would operate within a "Clearing Union" approach to monetary exchange and credit - very close to that proposed by Keynes at Bretton Woods.
Such an approach may not be conventional, but "asset based" variations on conventional equity eg REIT's, ETF's, Income and Royalty Trusts, Hedge Funds constituted as LP's, Sukuks, are becoming pretty mainstream these days.
If you don't think such an "asset-based" approach could work, I'd be interested in your reasoning... "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
I, for one, would never argue for a gold standard.
But in a sustainable world, interest (a.k.a. usury) is a crime, and compliance is enforced with popular enthusiasm.
Of course, our world is not sustainable. The Fates are kind.
The high profit comes from the same place it comes from in any Ponzi scheme, from rapid infinite growth. New suckers buying in provide the profits for those who are in already. There is no value added at all. Not even notionally. The profit came through unloading these things onto a sucker.
The mortgage writers would unload these bad debts (bad because unrepayable--the teaser rates would mousetrap most borrowers hopelessly) onto an investment bank (greater fool) who would cut them up and sell them to other banks (still greater fools) who would sell them to mutual funds, pension funds, town in Norway (just one example) and anyone who wanted to gamble (greatest fools all). A deliberate side effect of the scheme was that property values inflated, making it look like everyone was getting rich and masking the fact that no value was being created.
Since about year 2000, this Ponzi scheme has been the engine--the essence--of the US national economy. Now it is folding up, and sure! there are dark times ahead!
It is just the cream of the jest that when the music stopped, some big banks were still holding a lot of that paper that they had not yet thought to get rid of. They thought the game was still going--that they still had time! The Fates are kind.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 18 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 302 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10