pull down to refresh

FIRST STORY: Banks are (not) where the money is
Hashtag banking illiquidity
In the not-too-distant past, there were businesses that needed money to do business stuff, and often they would borrow the money from banks. The advantage of borrowing the money from banks is that banks have cheap funding: The banks get a lot of their money from depositors, and they can pay the depositors a very low rate of interest. The disadvantage of borrowing the money from banks is that banks have risky funding: The banks get a lot of their money from depositors, and the depositors can withdraw that money at any time.
so in recent years, because of regulatory changes and general caution, banks have at the margin retreated from lending money to businesses to do business stuff. Instead, other lenders — “private credit” — increasingly lend money to businesses to do business stuff. What do the banks do? Well, one thing that they do is lend money to the private credit firms.
LOL... "move up the capital structure" is a really, really ugly phrase.
...quoting some Bloomberg news:
"US banks are lending more to private credit firms, private equity shops and hedge funds, with loan volume to these non-bank financial institutions up 26% this year through November, according to Fitch Ratings."
Yeah, we regulate banks so much and so hard that it's better for them to offload banking to different "non-bank" entities. Brilliant plan. Thank god for financial regulators.

SECOND STORY: The future of banking is Strategy, obvs, and it sells overvalued shares to fund billion-dollar bitcoin purchases lol
During Paper Bitcoin Summer (#1217842) you could sell shares representing $1 worth of bitcoin for 2, 3, 5, 10 dollar. FUCKING PRINT THAT SHIT... and that's what savvy (and not-so-savvy) Bitcoiners greedy-fiat-financiers did, all summer long.
Only some schmucks actually believed the Kool-aid they were selling
you know, come on. That can’t last forever. For one thing, eventually people will notice and stop paying $2 for $1 of crypto. For another thing, though, you’re closing the arbitrage. [...by your own actions: buying bitcoin, selling shares]

"If you do this without limit, eventually the premium will close."

if you’re unlucky, your stock trades down to 90 or 80 or 50 cents on the dollar, and you face hard choices like “should I run the trade the other way and sell my Bitcoin to buy back stock?” (“Yes” is the good financial trader answer, but “no” is the good crypto true believer marketing answer; I don’t know what you should do.)

We do that trade ALL DAY LONG, suckers

if you had asked me two years ago “is it a good idea to sell $1 worth of stuff for $1.10” I would have said “of course what are you even talking about.” Compared to, you know, any other possible business, selling stock at a 10% premium to buy Bitcoin is still pretty good. Not what it used to be, but still pretty good.

238 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby 20h
This has been coming up a lot for me lately: society passes onerous complicated regulations that cause market distortions, then society bemoans the market distortions.
The way Levine talks about banks made me see a contrast with insurance that I hadn't seen before: banks have on-demand deposits, insurers have on-catastrophe deposits. In general, insurers seem to have been able to work out the probabilities on how frequently they will need to pay out, why is it that banks couldn't do the same?
Levine called bank funding risky funding -- in aggregate is a demand deposit more risky than underwriting insurance? Or maybe I'm not even asking about more or less risky, I'm asking is one harder to predict than the other?
reply
why is it that banks couldn't do the same?
they can, and they could. History -- by which I basically mean pre-regulation banking in the 18th and 19th century -- have plenty of banks figuring out the right level. (Scotland being the go-to example for all manner of innovative banking practices, including reserve management).
reply
One of the differences, though, is that floods can't decide to happen when they notice that you're vulnerable to a flood: i.e. bankruns aren't exogenous events.
reply
floods can't decide to happen when they notice that you're vulnerable to a flood
But places more vulnerable to flood have historically have had more flood damage! Clearly the floods are strategic about how they come about.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 20h
Ah, that makes sense.
reply
Quod erat demonstrandum
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 20h
So then where did the idea that banks have particularly risky funding come from that Levine can make such a statement in his very-popular newsletter as if it is a well-known fact?
reply
Feature of the fiat world // he never studied banking history past the 20th C...?
reply
183 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 20h
The advantage of borrowing the money from banks is that banks have cheap funding: The banks get a lot of their money from depositors, and they can pay the depositors a very low rate of interest.
Let me rewrite that:
The advantage of borrowing the money from banks is that banks have cheap funding: The banks get a lot of their money from depositors that are guaranteed by the government, so it doesn't matter what happens with it. The bank then takes a wholesome 1% fractional reserve (or less) and can thus just... print money.
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @winteryeti 16h
Banking management has always been a Ponzi scheme. Take the money people give you to save, lend it out to make more money, rinse, repeat, do it again. The primary risks are bad borrowers and, worse, bank runs by the original depositors.
reply
a little, yes.
For an unrelated question, say, what's your opinion on treasury companies?
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.