March 15, 20232 yr https://mises.org/wire/silicon-valley-bank-and-failure-fractional-reserve-banking Quote Silicon Valley Bank and the Failure of Fractional Reserve Banking 2 HOURS AGOJ.R. MacLeod With the apparent failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) potentially causing a crisis in the American and even the global financial system, we will be treated to all manner of explanations, very few of which will accurately state the cause of these troubles: fractional reserve banking. In modern banking there is little separation between warehouse and investment banking. The downside of investment banking is a potential loss of money since no investment can be a sure bet. The upside is the potential for a good return on money, the reward of taking on a degree of risk. In warehouse banking, such as personal or business checking accounts, the customer is not expecting any loss due to actions taken by the bank. The service rendered here is not expert investment advice; rather it is secure storage of funds and seamless payment transfer. The customer expects all of his money to be available to him at any time. Rather than having to pay a small fee for the services of a warehouse account, depositors are, in fact, paid a small return for using these services. This is because modern banks lend out money stored in warehouse accounts. Since the warehouse depositor is entitled to access all his money on demand, the banking scheme requires the creation of new money out of thin air. Say the bank lends outs 5 percent of the value of a warehouse account. They still claim to have 100 percent of the value of the account available to the depositor. In theory, this works if what the bank invested the 5 percent in was successful: the return on investment brings the real value of the warehouse account back up to 100 percent, pays a gain to the depositor, and pays a profit to the bank. Everybody wins. That is, assuming the investment is successful, which can hardly be relied upon. With the failure of the investment, the bank is now short 5 percent of the funds both expected by and legally owed to the warehouse account depositor. The bank has to find a way to make up the 5 percent shortfall before the depositor realizes what has happened. Otherwise, the depositor will try to remove all of his money, recouping his deposit from the bank’s reserves. We have been discussing only one account, but banks have many customers. We have also been discussing the relative prudence of a 95 percent reserve requirement. Say a bank has only 10 percent of their warehouse deposits available in cash. If its investments fail and it struggles to make payments, customers will scramble over one another to be the first to withdraw their deposit from the meager 10 percent the bank actually possesses. This is called a bank run and is the death spiral of a failing bank. This microeconomic situation has macroeconomic implications. The bank’s creation of money increases the money supply, inherently lowering lending standards. Investments which otherwise wouldn’t have been made typically fail and thus constitute malinvestment. Resources are misdirected, and during the time it takes to redirect resources into a new and sound capital structure, a recession occurs. In more prosaic terms, banks are the engine of economic growth, as they make capital available for businesses (investment banking). They are also the gasoline, as they provide a payment system (warehouse banking). If many banks fail, these essential services are unavailable, depressing the economy in a "liquidity crisis,” the beloved of the economic mainstream. The mechanism I have outlined above explains what happened in the case of Silicon Valley Bank. They did not have 100 percent of their warehouse accounts available in cash. The Federal Reserve dictated ultra-low interest rates for years. The Fed began raising rates in 2022 and 2023. SVB had extensive holdings of older US government bonds, losing investments when the Fed begins to raise rates. (Higher interest rates are also bad for start-ups in general.) The losses mounted, and SVB failed to secure money to cover the shortfall. Customers caught wind of what was happening and rushed to withdraw their deposits. The bank was insolvent, and the regulators took over operations. Since SVB is (was) the sixteenth largest bank in the United States and a key lender to the tech industry, one of the most important industries in the country, the outlook for the American economy is poor. Since all banks are intertwined in lending to one another, the outlook for the global economy is poor as well, with banking shares dropping internationally. The mainstream appears to understand the practical impact of fractional reserve banking, without realizing the full implications. As equity research analyst Alexander Yokum said in a comment to the BBC, "The issue was that people wanted money and they didn’t have it—they had it invested and those investments were down.” A single bank failure doesn’t necessarily spell economic collapse. SVB is liquidating assets to cover deposits, which is the right thing to do. America also has the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is a government agency that insures all deposits up to $250,000. However, the FDIC is only a temporary solution which makes things worse in the long run for the economy at large. The deposit insurance program institutes moral hazard and encourages risky behavior by banks. The solution to both bank runs and business cycles is to institute a gold standard along with a 100 percent reserve requirement for warehouse accounts. We must foster the public understanding that we live in the real world, not a utopia, and thus all investments carry risk. To avoid risk entirely means foregoing any prospect of a return and paying for warehousing services rendered, just like paying for any other good. Potentially, banks with both warehousing and investment divisions could offer free warehousing or even a return on warehousing accounts to entice people to use their investment division over that of competitors. But the separation between divisions would have to be strict for this to not be fractional reserve fraud against both the individual depositor and the public at large. Under this system, it would be possible to have economic growth, no inflation, no business cycles, and a declining price level too.
March 15, 20232 yr 27 minutes ago, iladelphxx said: https://mises.org/wire/silicon-valley-bank-and-failure-fractional-reserve-banking 50% of that is describing "how banks work" .. Literally no bank has ever had 100%, or even 95% of depositor's cash on hand. That's just not how banks work, and it has nothing to do with the Fed no matter how much Mises tries to twist it into a dunk on its favorite boogeyman. Fractional reserve banking long predates the Fed. This line is just ridiculous: Since SVB is (was) the sixteenth largest bank in the United States and a key lender to the tech industry, one of the most important industries in the country, the outlook for the American economy is poor. And this would be ruinous: The solution to both bank runs and business cycles is to institute a gold standard along with a 100 percent reserve requirement for warehouse accounts.
March 15, 20232 yr On 3/12/2023 at 9:14 PM, The_Omega said: How paranoid would one appear if they moved some money earning a higher interest rate at Wells Fargo to an account earning a lesser rate at a local bank to keep both under the FDIC limit? Asking for a friend. One thing to note, if it's a joint account, the $250k threshold is per co-owner. So if it's you and your wife on the account, the uninsured amount would be for anything over $500k.
March 15, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: One thing to note, if it's a joint account, the $250k threshold is per co-owner. So if it's you and your wife on the account, the uninsured amount would be for anything over $500k. we each have our own accounts where we're the primary but as a secondary user we're on each of our accounts. I don't have that much parked in cash, but I was curious how that would work since they're at the same institution.
March 15, 20232 yr 26 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: we each have our own accounts where we're the primary but as a secondary user we're on each of our accounts. I don't have that much parked in cash, but I was curious how that would work since they're at the same institution. My guess is that it's a per SSN limit for each institution but I'm not 100% sure.
March 15, 20232 yr On 3/13/2023 at 9:04 PM, Dave Moss said: Me wanting to instinctively say "How stupid do they think their viewers are!?" but then realizing
March 15, 20232 yr On 3/14/2023 at 11:23 AM, JohnSnowsHair said: I do think there's sense to keeping the financial investment companies separate from traditional retail banks. but I think we're a bit past that and don't see anybody who'd be willing to drive a wedge between them now.
March 15, 20232 yr You get a bailout, and you get a bailout and you get a bailout. Everyone gets a bailout!
March 15, 20232 yr We're going to have to come up with a workable framework that gives the federal reserve the ability to insure depositors while allowing banks to fail without bringing down the whole economy. I dunno, maybe not allowing them to get so damn big might be a start. We need some antitrust enforcement.
March 15, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: We're going to have to come up with a workable framework that gives the federal reserve the ability to insure depositors while allowing banks to fail without bringing down the whole economy. I dunno, maybe not allowing them to get so damn big might be a start. We need some antitrust enforcement. Don't worry, the Lizard People are all over it. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/davos23-central-bank-digital-currency-redesigning-money/ https://www.weforum.org/centres-and-platforms/shaping-the-future-of-financial-and-monetary-systems
March 20, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, DaEagles4Life said: I may be stupid about this. But isn't this saying that EU banks are going to coordinate their liquidity operations around the USD? They're basically trying to figure out how to handle it if there's runs on various small and medium sized banks .. some may handle it, others may not be liquid enough, and this is how they'll remain liquid?
March 20, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I may be stupid about this. But isn't this saying that EU banks are going to coordinate their liquidity operations around the USD? They're basically trying to figure out how to handle it if there's runs on various small and medium sized banks .. some may handle it, others may not be liquid enough, and this is how they'll remain liquid?
Create an account or sign in to comment