Following on from the discussion in the previous post on whether bank1 deposits are money the question arises as to what happens when bank depositors try to convert their bank deposits into money – make a withdrawal, write out a cheque, pay a bill or uses any of the other methods to get at the funds. Will the bank be able to meet the demand for cold, hard, cash?
In short, how do banks manage liquidity?
The Problem
For banks, the problem is actually a fairly simple one to state. Long term, banks typically make money by borrowing short and lending long. As yield curves are typically upward sloping this works well – borrowing borrowing from people who want to deposit short and are prepared to receive between 0 and 4 or 5% to do so and then lending this to people who want to borrow to build homes and pay from 6 to 10%, run credit card balances at around 12% (or more) is a good business. With modern banking practice this even is profitable at a net interest margin of less than 2%.
Given that bank makes the most money by transforming short-dated liabilities into long dated loans the way to make the most money in the long term is to lend it all out and for as long as possible. Great strategy – with only one flaw. Some depositors are inconsiderate enough to want to be able to actually ask the bank to do what the bank has promised to do – pay their deposit at call.
The trick to making the most money, then, is to make sure that you only have enough liquid assets on hand to meet all your depositors calls on the funds and as little as possible more. This is because liquid assets pay little interest, with the most liquid, cash, paying none at all.
Getting this right is the responsibility of the ALM (Asset / Liability Management) function, usually headed by the (gloriously named) ALCO (Asset Liability Committee).
Get it wrong and, no matter how solvent your bank, if it cannot pay depositors calls you will very shortly not be a functioning institution.
Name Crisis
Mostly, a quick collapse is precipitated by a name crisis – in brief, your depositors no longer trust you to be able to make good on your promises. They then rush to be at the head of the queue to get “their money” out of the bank. Bank runs out of liquid assets, bank goes phut. In this instance it really does not matter if the bank’s net asset position is strong – if a bank cannot pay it is then in liquidation.
In many countries this risk is reduced through mechanisms like deposit insurance or guaranteed central bank facilities. Both of these have their problems – mostly moral hazard. If you want more on this go here. Suffice to say that, in Australia at least, we have not succumbed to the siren’s song as yet.
Australian Regulations
Legally speaking, Australian liquidity regulation is governed by APS 210 (Liquidity) and the associated guidance notes, AGN 210.1 Liquidity Management Strategy, AGN 210.2 Scenario Analysis and AGN 210.3 Minimum Liquidity Holdings. As far as regulations go, these are not too bad. They are principles based and flexible enough to cope with most approaches taken by banks. In brief, they mandate the following:
- A bank has to have a liquidity management strategy that is approved by the regulator;
- It has to analyse certain scenarios to show the regulator that they can be dealt with; and
- If a bank cannot satisfy the regulator that they can robustly model their liquidity requirements they have to hold a minimum of 9% of their assets in certain highly liquid forms.
For a small bank this sort of scheme is actually pretty good. Provided the regulator actually has a clue of what they are doing you could do a lot worse. The ALCO can normally take this as a baseline and then build a strategy on this.
International View
Oddly, given that liquidity management is one of the two principle risks facing banks, there are no international accords on liquidity management. It is all left to national regulators – although rumours have it that this may change with Basel III.
Generally, each regulator follows their own path.
Management Strategy
For smaller banks (and if you are with a bigger bank do not expect to get a full strategy off a blog – away with you) this needs some real time, thought and, yes, expense.
The first part of any decent liquidity strategy is simple – satisfy the regulations. You may think that this is an obvious point but I have seen this missed. No matter how silly the regulations you will need to satisfy them. If they are bad regulations, seek to change them. If the regulators will not listen, lobby in your parliament. Outright arguing with the regulators will get you into a bad place. Don’t try it. Doctors may say “First, do no harm”. I say “First, satisfy the regulations”.
The second part is to model your requirements. Spend a good amount of time (and money) getting this right. Even if you cannot use a model for regulatory purposes use one. If you start trying to run your bank to minimum regulatory standards it is probably well past time for you to retire. Still young? Cheer up – you may be able to get a job with one of the regulators. Probably only as a junior analyst, though.
Make sure you are able to meet your forecast requirements at least 99.99% of the time. This means that your model will not save you on one day every 2.74 years, worst case.
For those days the third part is crucial. This is having committed back up facilities available on, at worst, 24 hour call. These facilities should be structured to be big enough to get you through a once in a century event. Make sure they are with at least two other, large, banks. Pay the fees. They are worth it and you cannot put them in place when you need them – that is too late.
Lastly – and possibly most crucially, have a good name crisis plan. Review its operation frequently (at least once a year). Make sure the statements from the bank’s Chair are already drafted. Have your media and PR people briefed. Know all the financial journalists in your city well enough that not only do they answer your calls but they call you.
The worst possible way for news of a problem to get out is through rumour, followed by silence (perhaps with a rising background of prayer and panic) and then a rush followed by an announcement from the regulator. Make sure this will not happen to you.
1. As always, I use the term “bank” as a substitute for any deposit taking institution. In Australia, these are authorised deposit-taking institutions, licensed under the Banking Act 1959. In other countries they will be called other things. To the public, though, they are all banks.
137 comments
10 October, 2007 at 06:27
David Jacobson
If deposits come with stringent liquidity management obligations, then how do you “value” deposits, especially at call funds? Is it the difference betweeen the cost of managing the funds and interest paid on the one hand and the cost of having to borrow funds to on-lend and what happens when the cost of borrowing dramatically changes as occurred recently?
10 October, 2007 at 08:50
Andrew
David,
IN practice, “call” funds are a relatively stable funding base except in the event of name crisis – they are also relatively cheap and do not expect day-to-day variability in the interest paid. To value them accurately depends on modelling their behaviour. You need to include in that valuation the risks of name crisis or any other panic event and also mitigating strategies.
Even with these risks, they are quite valuable. This is why the branch networks are extending again after years of decline.
12 February, 2009 at 21:51
kanu uchendu
hello,
please i am writing a project on liquidity management in Nigeria commercial banks. send me articles to aid me
13 February, 2009 at 11:42
Andrew
Kanu,
Best place to look for articles would be at Google Scholar and then search for banking liquidity management if you are looking for research journal published articles.
28 February, 2009 at 03:50
victoria
hello,
pls am writing a project on ASSESSEMENT OF BANK LIQUIDATION IN NIGERIA (1994-2008). pls if any info or article pls send to the above email.
28 February, 2009 at 03:52
victoria
thanks
28 February, 2009 at 10:01
Andrew
There seem to be a lot of people in Nigeria wanting information on bank liquidity. Odd. ;)
21 March, 2009 at 23:58
Andrew Amedu
pls who can help me with any document on the impact of liquidity management on the profitabity of banks
22 March, 2009 at 02:36
Andrew
Guys,
Read further up the thread. I will not be emailing anyone any information of this sort.
26 March, 2009 at 03:37
Temitope Oyebanji
hello,
please i am writing a project on CASH DEPOSIT MANAGEMENT IN COMMERCIAL BANKING IN NIGERIA ( FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. AS A CASE STUDY). Could you pls assist me? send your replys to my email temimama@yahoo.co.uk
7 July, 2009 at 20:02
Asset
Thank you very much
Nice post on bank liquidity management.
I think giving money on loan at higher interest and depositing money at low rate is the best possible way to manage liquidity.
But, I am not sure how bank manages cases where people fails to deposit the loan amount. What does banks do at that time?
7 July, 2009 at 20:29
Andrew
Asset,
People rarely re-deposit the money they have borrowed. That is the whole point – if you are lent money you normally go out and spend it.
7 July, 2009 at 20:34
ABOM
…which ends up in someone else’s bank account…unless that person is smart and buys silver instead…
7 July, 2009 at 21:26
Andrew
ABOM, either way it is less than 100% likely to go back to the bank that issued the loan. Therefore, making a loan reduces the amount of liquidity available to the bank issuing the loan.
8 July, 2009 at 10:12
ABOM
…and that’s why you need central bankers with FRB…which is why I don’t recommend “reckless” FRB which is INHERENTLY “unstable and very volatile” (note: I did NOT say it was a Ponzi scheme Andrew so no need to delete this comment!)
9 July, 2009 at 00:56
Andrew
Oh – and the “Ponzi” bit was just on that thread. So far I have never deleted a comment on this blog except where it was obvious spam that got through the filter.
8 July, 2009 at 14:56
Andrew
ABOM,
But anyone making a loan (i.e. if I lend some money to a mate) reduces the amount of liquidity available to them. Do I need a central bank to monitor my lending ability and provide me with funding in case I cannot get the funds back?
8 July, 2009 at 16:22
ABOM
If you are a deposit-taking institution you do. If you just a sucker member of the non-bank public you don’t.
I think everyone should be in the same boat – lend only to credit worthy borrowers and don’t cry to mommy when you don’t get your money back.
So killing off the RBA and cutting the banks from mommy’s skirt strings would eliminate moral hazard in banking and make for a much more robust financial sector IN THE LONG RUN.
In the short run no doubt some would panic. But that’s the price that has to be paid.
If you’re for deregulation Andrew you should be for ending the RBA.
8 July, 2009 at 16:44
Andrew
I am, ABOM. I just do not agree that this means that any new restrictions (such as banning FRB – if it is possible to do so) are needed in its place, as you seem to.
8 July, 2009 at 17:03
ABOM
I don’t. You misunderstand me (and Rothbard). We both think FRB is embezzlement but Rothbard states the following in his seminal THe Mystery of Banking (and I agree with him 100%)
“Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.”
FullRB is impractical. So free banking is the best alternative.
Get rid of the RBA, allow me to trade in gold or silver if I want to (and if I can, I probably won’t bother, ironically) and I will buy you a Scotch (of any brand) and all will be well with the world…
8 July, 2009 at 20:40
Andrew
I would disagree that FRB can be banned or even should be, but I would agree that free banking is where we should be headed, and under the condition that Rothbard states. if a bank cannot meet its liabilities then, like any other business, it should be put into receivership or liquidation. As a personal opinion I do not see why banks should be subject to any laws that the rest of the business community are not.
Again, personally, I think that this would make banks smaller and more risk adverse and allow more choice to consumers, with a genuine market for funds.
However, I would disagree that the best way to get there is to start by increasing regulation.
9 July, 2009 at 09:28
ABOM
Agreed.
If we can somehow turn the lights off at the RBA offices in Martin Place and blow up that appalling soulless filthy modernist monstrosity called the RBA’s head office, I would die a happy man.
29 July, 2009 at 07:22
Victoia
hi i am interested in this article and i believe it will help me with my dessertation.The paper is on effective liquidity management and how it can be a life blood of banks especially in times of crisis.
12 October, 2009 at 16:36
Anon
Hi, your note raises a question for me at my bank about how our treasury is managing liquidity. As far as i was aware, treasury’s job is to manage liquidity through proprietary trading (primarily), whereas now we are passing on increased costs, in excess of risk margins, and “cost of funds” via a “liquidity premium”. this is not a transparent margin. According to my understanding, if the price for liquidity is higher, we should be bidding to AFMA a higher BBSW rate, but then that forces our hand and shows the market we are no longer AA rated, does it not?
12 October, 2009 at 17:19
Andrew
Anon,
I would be interested to know which bank that is – but I somehow think you would be a little reluctant to let us know :)
If I remember dealing with AFMA correctly (it has been a while – not many corporates get to do it) the bank should be adjusting its bidding to AFMA. IIRC, though, the rates that are sent to AFMA to make that up are not published – just the average which is arrived at by eliminating the top and bottom rates and then publishing the average of the remainder.
That said, I suspect AFMA would get a little upset if it thought it was being fed dud information.
The other participants in the market would talk enough in any case so that if a bank was having trouble raising funds at or near swap it would be well enough known that AFMA and perhaps APRA would get involved.
15 October, 2009 at 09:55
ABOM
Can Fairfax get their stories straight?
Village idiot Ross Gittins argues that the Australian banking system has come through with flying colours (despite being one of the few countries to have found it necessary to have a GOVT GUARANTEE over ALL bank deposits – an embarrassment only Ireland and a few other basket cases had to provide the international markets).
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-can-learn-a-lesson-from-australia-20091011-gsfl.html
On the other hand Ian Harper and others are calling for an urgent mini-Wallis review to cover liquidity issues in the non-bank sector, because that sector threatens to take the whole market down because of liquidity concerns there and the huge “gap” in regulation that the stupid Wallis Report left for the non-bank sector:
http://www.afr.com/home/login.aspx?ATL://20091014000031659483§ion=News
http://www.afr.com/home/login.aspx?ATL://20091014000031659675§ion=Business
Can these guys get their stories straight? Is Fairfax arguing that the banks are brilliant or that they are bust?
I vote bust (if they weren’t bust there would be no need for the govt guarantee would there) and that this is proof the Wallis Report was a sad joke.
But then again no one ever listened to me (or listens to me) so I assume even bigger mistakes will be made with even more regulations.
Sad. These people are all blind as bats and as stupid as Keynes.
15 October, 2009 at 10:09
Andrew
ABOM,
There was no need for the guarantee in Australia – as I pointed out a long time ago.
The system does broadly work here. It is expensive, prone to having over-large banks and has several other problems, but it does work.
15 October, 2009 at 10:22
ABOM
Right.
So why is it still in place, nearly 12 months on?
And why is there no proposal to have it removed asap?
And why is the govt playing “market sucker”, buying $8 billion of rats and mice RMBSs at full price right now, if the wholesale credit/debt markets are healthy again?
15 October, 2009 at 12:13
Andrew
For the simple reason that the government does not want to have to admit that they got it wrong.
15 October, 2009 at 12:40
ABOM
Your kidding, right? You don’t think the banks would scream llike little children if the govt let go of the guarantee early? You think they’re LOBBYING for its removal, do you?
I assume you also believe the $8 billion purchase of RMBSs occurred over the vociferous objections of the small banks/credit unions, as a slight on their credit worthiness?
Yup, the financial institutions in Australia (big bank and non-big bank) are all just fine and dandy – as long as the 100% govt guarantee remains in place. The second that’s removed – watch out. Then we’ll really get a study in “liquidity management”.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
15 October, 2009 at 12:40
ABOM
You’re kidding. I’m not.
15 October, 2009 at 13:43
Andrew
They are issuing wholesale debt without it now. AFAIK they have not called for its removal because it is not costing them anything. Why would they call for it to be removed?
15 October, 2009 at 14:08
ABOM
Because as a reputable bank you don’t want to be tarred with the “You’re little babies/You can’t stand on your own two feet/Your stupid treasury-risk management depts are incompetent/You’re so stupid you’re flying blind, needing the govt to act as safety net” brush. After all, earning millions whilst taking govt money away from the homeless/poor/sick/infirm seems a little….how should I put this…..parasitic, doesn’t it?
But then, it’s a little too late not to be tarred with that brush, isn’t it?
15 October, 2009 at 14:46
Andrew
Perhaps if you were the only out there with misunderstandings of the role and procedures banks it would not be so. As there does seem to be a lot of you, it may be. Those of us who do know, though, I feel have a responsibility to try to at least slow it down.
16 October, 2009 at 21:06
ABOM
For an interesting example of modern liquidity management:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/11/banking-crisis-one-year-on
I call this the “print and pray” method. Ha ha ha.
17 October, 2009 at 14:42
ABOM
This is quite possibly the greatest quote on why massive bank runs and “systemic risk” are still 100% certain to retrun the current environment:
Elizabeth Warren, Chair, TARP Congressional Oversight Panel:
“The reason banks lost confidence in each other is because they looked at their own books.” (Referring to the loss of confidence that roiled markets during the darkest days of the crisis.)
“The reason banks lost confidence in each other is because they looked at their own books.” That’s all it will take next time around. The banks to look at their own books and realise they’re all insolvent, and so is the govt. The US govt is the last “big bank” to fail. US treasury bonds will be the last “big bank run” before a return to gold and silver.
17 October, 2009 at 14:43
ABOM
“to return in the current environment”. What environment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_fractional-reserve_banking
17 October, 2009 at 21:24
Alice
Yeah what current envronment – ?? Lets look at the real bank books??
18 October, 2009 at 00:26
Andrew
ABOM,
Business failures happen from time to time. Why should banks be forced to be exempt?
18 October, 2009 at 10:05
ABOM
What are you talking about Andrew? Your misunderstand me (that happens quite often). I’m not saying they should be exempt. I’m actually saying banks are inherently illiquid/insolvent, with liquidity issues only being covered up by the existence of a central bank. There is no possibility of a 100% protection against bank runs without the existence of a central bank ready to print like Hell.
“Bank liquidity management” is an oxymoron. They are inherently illiquid institutions because they borrow short to lend long. That’s what banks DO. All they can do is anticipate the next bust and cash up before the wave hits. That’s the skill in banking – getting off the Titanic before anyone else notices the ship is sinking.
18 October, 2009 at 15:39
Andrew
Bollocks, ABOM. As I have explained many, many times a debt (under all forms of commercial law) is payable as and when it falls due. A bank deposit is a debt from a bank to the depositor and falls due as and when the depositor calls it – subject to the contract between the bank and the depositor.
If you cannot understand that then you really do not deserve any time or attention.
Bank are no more “inherently illiquid” than any other commercial enterprise. They have risks and they deal with them.
You really have swallowed the social credit line completely, haven’t you? Joined the League of Rights yet?
18 October, 2009 at 21:32
ABOM
Please estimate the probability of a bank run for all the big four banks in Australia in the next decade. Or, for that matter, do an estimate for all the majors in the US or the UK. Please estimate with reference to their reserve ratios, liquidity, o/s funding requirements (rollovers in the wholesale market), bad debts and solvency.
I estimate the probability of a bank run for at least one of the big four as (roughly) 80%. For at least two small players – 100%. For a major US institution: 90 – 100%. Systemic risk and bank runs occur on average around once every ten years: Q4 2008, 2001, 1991/2, 1982/3, 1971 (http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/bms/2006/0511.html) etc etc etc.
Rough estimate for the next one: 2011-2012. It will happen sooner because growth rates in the West are slowing due to ageing demographics and cheaper labour o/s sucking away manufacturing jobs (which builds the middle class). Baby boomers tried to gear up for retirement. And failed. Last of the idiots will try to liquidate soon. Primary method of liquidation – investment properties. When they do, watch out.
What do I base my estimate on?
http://www.goldensextant.com/SavingtheSystem.html
http://jsmineset.com/
Now, if you are running an institution where, historically, the industry underwent a systemic crisis once every 10 years, and you had been given estimates that in the next 5 years there was at least a 20% chance you would be insolvent (0.25 x 80% – one of four big banks with an 80% chance one will become insolvent), would you be trading insolvently now? Probably not. But if you were that one bank with the bad debts growing like a cancer, and you looked at your books and you knew you were THAT bank, then you would be.
And I predict that bank will be wining and dining the head of the RBA and the PM very carefully over the next year or so.
QED.
18 October, 2009 at 21:38
ABOM
And Gregalton used the term “bollocks” to describe my work 8 months before the GFC in Q4, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_fractional-reserve_banking/Archive_1#Article_scope_and_approach
Now you use the same word to describe my writings here.
Perhaps, based on this analysis (a mainstreamer describing my careful research as “bollocks”), we are actually 8 months from the next crisis.
20 October, 2009 at 15:16
Andrew
ABOM,
How many crises have occurred in the last century of Australian banking? A precise number, please.
.
I note a complete and utter failure (again) to answer the actual point.
20 October, 2009 at 15:32
ABOM
Define “crisis”. Dozens of banks merged in the post-war era. It’s difficult to determine whether some of those mergers were due to crises (merger covering up insolvency) or whether they were warranted.
St George – Westpac would be a good example.
In recent memory: 2008, 1991/92 (definitely a crisis – State banks, building societies), 1982/3 (arguably), 1973/4, Posiden, credit crunch of the early 60s….as I said, there’s a banking/general solvency crisis at least once every 10 years.
Unfortunately it’s getting very close to the govt and money itself being the crisis. That will come. Eventually.
20 October, 2009 at 15:37
ABOM
“As I have explained many, many times a debt (under all forms of commercial law) is payable as and when it falls due. A bank deposit is a debt from a bank to the depositor and falls due as and when the depositor calls it – subject to the contract between the bank and the depositor. If you cannot understand that then you really do not deserve any time or attention. Bank are no more “inherently illiquid” than any other commercial enterprise. They have risks and they deal with them.”
I disagree. So does Rothbard and a few others….
“It is impossible to “insure” a firm, even less so an industry, that is inherently insolvent.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard163.html
“Inflationary credit expansion/fractional-reserve banking makes banks inherently insolvent.”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83154
20 October, 2009 at 16:03
Andrew
Yes, ABOM. Those that disagree are Rothbard, De Soto and the (self-appointed) Fekete – all of whom need to make up their own laws in order that they reach that conclusion. The law in the whole of the Western World is settled on the matter of when a demand deposit becomes due – subject to contract it is on demand i.e. not all the time, just when demanded.
Inconvenient as it is for you and the other mentioned gentlemen’s position as it is, that is the law. It is also in each and every contract you have with each and every bank you deal with.
Something else you need to deal with – you are wrong on this.
.
In Australia the answer of how often has there been a systemic crisis in the banking system is simple – excepting government induced or controlled banks, there has not yet been one. That is to say – there has been none. Zero.
Again – inconvenient for you, but correct. Individual banks have occasionally had problems, but there has not been a systemic crisis in Australia.
Note, though, I am not saying that one cannot happen, just that they are very, very rare. I see no reason why this should not continue to be the case.
20 October, 2009 at 16:27
ABOM
Your definition of “systemic crisis” is a little narrower than mine. Guaranteeing the deposits of EVERY BANK IN AUSTRALIA by the lumpen taxpayer (involuntarily roped into the obligation by the govt) seems like a sign of…of…something, if not systemic crisis.
And to say 1991/92 was not a systemic crisis in Australia (esp. in SA and Vic and WA) – that seems to me a little, how should I put this, “cute”, don’t you think? If you don’t think either 2008 or 1991/92 were examples of systemic crises then you’re right – they are very rare.
Because they’ve been defined out of existence.
20 October, 2009 at 16:35
Andrew
It is a sign of a government that was raised on the sort of BS you are peddling above in a state of panic. That is what it is a sign of.
The definition of a systemic crisis is pretty clear, ABOM. Maybe you should try to educate yourself on it.
20 October, 2009 at 20:34
ABOM
I wrote most of the WP article on systemic risk. Which hasn’t been substantially altered for months.
Ouch.
21 October, 2009 at 09:30
Andrew
We must all bow down before wikipedia. Particularly the bits you write.
21 October, 2009 at 12:22
ABOM
Please feel free to correct any of my errors. It is an open-source encyclopedia after all, where anyone (including “experts”) can correct the edits of others.
21 October, 2009 at 13:19
Andrew
I restrict my editing to areas that I believe I can be counted on as authoritative – such as on Basel II. It is a real pity you do not seem to.
21 October, 2009 at 13:29
ABOM
Again, if you have a problem with anything on systemic risk, please feel free to apply your considerable expertise to that page. However, given you believe Australia has never experienced an episode of systemic risk (not in 1991, not in 1893, not in the 1930s) I can understand your reluctance to contribute.
With the greatest respect, I do consider myself authoritative on systemic risk because no one else seems to have substantially improved on my edits. I believe the current population of humans on planet Earth (including mixed-race embezzling Reptilians) is around 6.792 billion. Any of them could have improved the article on WP.
I am therefore authoritative by default.
21 October, 2009 at 13:59
Andrew
Perhaps by default of of those who have not improved on your edits. For a start, most of the 6.792 billion do not have access to the internet, the English language or Wikipedia.
You understanding of how to edit the wiki is showing some serious holes there.
21 October, 2009 at 14:17
ABOM
Yeah, well you’re one of the 6.792 billion that does have access to a computer, does speak English and does know something about finance. So use it to improve systemic risk or…(I think you know what I’m thinking).
21 October, 2009 at 14:42
Andrew
I will take the “does know something about finance” as a compliment.
3 November, 2009 at 15:19
ABOM
Something. Not everything.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but Krugman actually makes a good point here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/cre-and-the-cra/
CRE is almost as bad in the US as residential. So the argument that regulation pushed bankers into making bad loans is a difficult argument to make.
However the ultimate regulation is the removal of gold as real money and the enforcement of legal tender laws, so if you really get to the heart of the issue the crisis was caused by govt and central banking. But the CRA is not the prime culprit.
4 November, 2009 at 08:08
Alice
ABOM – what did you say to earn two deletes in 24 hours?
4 November, 2009 at 08:47
ABOM
Alice, to sum up my fairly innocent comments:
(1) “No one can hear me scream here in Keynesian fiat currency Hell”.
(2) Keynesian John Quiggin is duplicitous in attacking Austrians on being sceptical of climate science because:
(a) Keynesians were screaming for continuing the forced overconsumption of the world’s precious limited resouces only a few months ago here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/06/06/economists-and-public-debt/
But on the other hand they are now screaming the world is ending and we need to regulate business even more heavily:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/02/libertarians-and-delusionism/
Can anyone see the OBVIOUS inconsistency in these positions? I agree the world is ending, but because of insane debt-created overconsumption, not because of the evils of the market. The market has existed since civilization began. A purely fiat currency system has existed only since Aug 15, 1971. Since then we have had the biggest pollution and economic problems we have ever seen in the history of man. Whether this is caused by fiat, debt, or over population (or all three) I can’t say. However these are the facts. Make your own interpretation up.
(b) The only common denominator is that govt intervention is the solution in both cases, according to JQ.
(c) I found it ironic that JQ (an economist) was using a scientific hypothesis (climate change) as a litmus test to determine whether Austrians were “serious” economists. JQ (1) assumes he knows about climate science (he doesn’t) (2) assumes anyone who questions climate science is mad (they may not be) (3) thinks anyone who questions the govt’s solutions to the “problem” is also mad (even if you accept the science, govt may not be the answer – raising interest rates to their ‘natural’ level and a simple “depression” in consumption may be a simpler solution) (4) isn’t allowing an open debate (he keeps censoring me for some bizarre reason) and (5) to top it off accuses Austrians of being part time scientists – when he is the King of Part Time Amateur Science (I could also accuse him of being King of Part Time Amateur Economics but that would be a cheap shot).
To think someone who censors an (open-minded!) Austrian is really interested in a fair intellectual fight on this issue is naive.
Don’t be.
JQ’s solution to any problem is always “more government intervention/regulation.” He’s a simple closet socialist/commi, using Keynes as cover. An Keynes isn’t really commi cover anyway.
Don’t be fooled. He couldn’t care less about the environment. While I’m crying at night over the oil spill off NW WA, he couldn’t care less, not mentioning it once, deleting my multiple references to this God-awful govt stuff up that will kill the eco-system and fisheries in that region for at least a decade (and potentially poison us with toxic fish – who’s to say we won’t eat these fish in a year’s time???).
For someone to be sceaming about a hypothetical future problem needing a govt-enforced carbon tax – in the face of the ACTUAL LIVING REALITY of the biggest environmental catastrophe in decades (censored by the govt and the media and the oil companies and JQ) – this shows how much he cares about the future and our environment. He couldn’t care less.
Commis never really care about the environment. They care about power over people. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were the worst polluters. Because no one could sue the govt for pollution in socialist Hell.
JQ is just another crazy commi. Use his blog, but don’t buy his Koolaid. It’s polluted and toxic.
4 November, 2009 at 09:08
ABOM
And just on my running debate with Andrew whether banks are inherently insolvent:
“Even in a fiat system where money is amazingly backed by nothing, more credit can be extended than there is actual fiat currency. This is fraudulent as well, and sooner or later a credit crisis erupts caused by inability to pay back with interest what has been lent.
Indeed the entire banking system in insolvent right now. It is physically impossible to pay back all the credit that has been extended on the fiat base money supply that actually exists.”
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-is-money-and-how-does-one-measure.html
Andrew has called this “bollocks”, “nonsense”, “twaddle” (or was it twoddle – I can’t remember). I think he’s running out of adjectives.
And excuses not to read my damn references.
4 November, 2009 at 13:08
Sea-bass
ABOM,
I wasn’t going to bring it up on JQ’s blog, because I typically get chided for thread derailment, but you are basically correct in highlighting the basic contradictions inherent in the Keynesian position with respect to the environment.
It is basically a doctrine that posits the necessity of greater levels of needless and unproductive consumption in the name of “full employment” and that decries the evil of conservation, thrift and saving. And yet you will encounter people on the blog who would consider themselves Keynesians and still believe “consumerism” is the problem. It probably is, and perhaps I am wrong in assuming a link between consumerism and consumptionism, but it still leads me to believe that they do not adequately understand their own position, or that of Keynesianism.
I agree JQ is not interested in a fair fight – perhaps he is getting tired of reiterating his position on several issues, but I am disappointed to find that he relies a lot on rhetorical devices without justifying them: “Free banking was tried and failed, it’s been proven conclusively” – I would expect better of a distinguished economist. Interestingly enough, his photo hangs in the ANU economics’ department “Hall of Fame”, and it has some quote about his “commitment to freedom and justice” or something. I was very surprised.
4 November, 2009 at 13:11
ABOM
Correct!
4 November, 2009 at 13:13
Sea-bass
By the way, what are the central points of disagreement between Andy and ABOM? If you could sum it up briefly that would be great. My background is in economics, and despite some overlap, a lot of the time I cannot keep track of what people with a background in finance are talking about. Cheers.
4 November, 2009 at 14:04
ABOM
FRB is/is not embezzlement, inherently fraudulent/unethical/immoral/criminal.
ABOM: Yes!. Andie: Bollocks!
FRB is/is not a cheap Ponzi scheme, shell game.
ABOM: Yes!. Andie: Bollocks!
FRB should be outllawed as monetary embezzlement.
Andie: NO! ABOM: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..
Full RB is good.
Andie: Bollocks! ABOM: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm………….
Helen Hodgson Brown and Michael Rowbotham and Stephen Zarlenga may be on to something – Full RB combined with govt issued debt-free money.
Andie: Bollocks! ABOM: Ummmmmmmmmmmmm……………
Central banking is/is not an acceptable (although not perfect) transitional arrangement towards genuine deregulation.
Andie: Yes. ABOM: Bollocks!
Central banking is/is not a step towards one world govt, regional currency blocs, debt-slavery, communism, worldwide starvation and environmental and social chaos.
ABOM: Yes! Andie: Bollocks!
Monetary revolution requires swift, decisive, mass action involving a complete sudden re-ordering of society through the elimination of central banking and central govt, with a return to more localised power structures and even different regional currencies. The smaller the currency areas, the better. Let multiple currencies and govts compete with each other as much as possible.
ABOM: Yes, only radical extreme sudden action can kill off the Leviathan. Gradualism only works if you are a socialist. Or a Fabian. Andie: Bollocks, monetary reform can occur incrementally through deregulation.
Goldman Sachs are smart guys who deserve their bonuses (Congratulations Goldmans!)/Goldman Sachs are the monetary Mafia – barbaric, stupid, short-term focused killers of the real economy.
Guess.
Deposits are/are not money.
Are: ABOM. Are not: Andie.
Gold is real money and von Mises and Rothbard and 4000 years of human history proves it/Gold is antiquated rubbish and Adam Smith and Ricardo and Keynes proved that years ago and since Aug 15, 1971 we have been living in a better, more deregulated monetary world.
Guess.
We are doomed due to fiat money, legal tender laws, central banking and FRB/We are not doomed – this is extremist talk.
ABOM: Oh Dear God YES! Andie: Bollocks!
The Levy distibtion works for financial markets, and sometimes the normal distribution is a useful tool in understanding the distribution of returns in various financial markets/Both distributions miss the link between leverage and extreme volatility and therefore the Makian Distribution works best for periods of high debt/stress in financial markets.
Guess.
ABOM is an idiot who keeps providing useless links/ABOM is not an idiot and his links merely appropriately reference some of his more controversial statements.
Guess.
The free market can work with monopoly money and central banking/the free market is not free without a free market in money.
Andie: Free markets and monopoly money can work. ABOM: We. Are. Freaking. Doooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmed.
Having kids is a good idea/We are the last of the Mohicans – doomed.
Andie: I have kids. ABOM: We. Are. Freaking. Doooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmed
We have a future/We are like a locust plague that has just reached the tipping point – max. population, with max. consumption, but with no NEW farmland/resources to exploit. We either stop behaving like locusts. Or learn to eat each other. Fast.
Andie: We have a future. ABOM: Learn to eat (though not necessarily enjoy) human flesh. Chianti not required.
4 November, 2009 at 14:12
TokyoTom
ABOM, you make a bunch of good points at 8:47: http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/#comment-28286
But I tire this over-the-top, echo-chamber style railing at “commies” (at LvMI, it`s “watermelons”; green on the outside, red on the inside). This is just one of the ways that libertarians make sure that their message of how government lies at the core of many screwed up problems falls on decidedly deaf ears.
4 November, 2009 at 14:14
ABOM
I know. I can’t convince anyone of anything.
4 November, 2009 at 14:27
Sea-bass
Hmmmmm….
I’d probably be somewhere in the middle.
4 November, 2009 at 16:17
Alice
ABOM
We are now both in trouble here from your Tokyo Tom and there from JQ. Nothwithstanding Id appreciate you stop railing at watermelon commies as well. I dont see anything in the links that Tokyo Tom is praising that in any way indicates keynesians were pushing overconsumption. We got into trouble from overconsumption in the financial markets but you neglect to mention the overconsumption of the wealthy at the expense of the poor who lost their super to a whole raft of obscenely paid executives ABOM. In terms of the fiscal stimulus, you know and I know, that any market correction is going to fall disproportionately on the poor first. The fiscal stimulus is one way of correcting the preceding imbalance that caused the markets to implode in the first place. The wealthy have been having a helluva ride for more than two decades. Its time to reign in the excess, not impoverish those trying just to live ordinary lives and save a bit in their super for when they retire. We need as many to contribute positively as possible. After all you cant shoot the poor although you didn hint above that Andy could eat them.
The entire trouble with libertarians is they have nothing that creates order to replace the government with and the market will not do this and individuals taking their freedoms will not do this. It is quite possible to have a market equilibrium that is efficient where two percent of the population is rolling in luxury but the other 98% are starving to death and dying. It may be efficient. I just dont want to step over the bodies. I dont want to end up in hell with CEOs for company.
But that is a damn funny post at 2:04 pm!
4 November, 2009 at 16:27
ABOM
I think the one on JQ’s blog (at 15:33) is funnier. He is such a control freak it’s not funny. If there is one thing I admire about Andrew it’s that he will allow fairly wide debate on his own blog, even when he’s shown (clearly) to be wrong. That’s big of him (or perhaps he doesn’t realise how wrong he is?) Either way I’m grateful.
I admit a rise in interest rates would hit the poor. But what are the alternatives?
If gold was money the rich wouldn’t be as rich and the poor wouldn’t be as poor. To get from here to there, someone is going to get hurt. I just want the pain over quickly.
As a doctor sometimes you just have to accept that a limb has to be cut to save the body. You sound like someone who would try alternative medicine and watch the patient die rather than sever a leg. Humane. But it might not work.
4 November, 2009 at 16:34
ABOM
“It is quite possible to have a market equilibrium that is efficient where two percent of the population is rolling in luxury but the other 98% are starving to death and dying. It may be efficient. I just dont want to step over the bodies. I dont want to end up in hell with CEOs for company.”
That’s not how it’s worked historically. The biggest disparities in income generally occur with resticted economic opportunity.
You’re afraid of life without Big Brother. What if Big Brother is the Mafia? What do you do then?
I said before, imagine you are living in an Italian village. You complain that the Mafia is paid protection money, but they allow a thief to beat up your father and take his money. The Mafia say “The thief was one of our own. Shut up or we’ll shoot you.”
Is more Mafia or less Mafia the answer in such a case?
Imagine you are the victim of Madoff or Goldman Sachs or the super funds appalling negative returns. You complain that the regulations were not enforced or that there are not enough regulations. The regulators say “Madoff was one of our own. Shut up or we’ll do a tax audit on you.”
Is more regulation or less regulation the answer in such a case? Big Brother is the problem not the solution.
4 November, 2009 at 17:12
Sea-bass
What is Andy’s attitude to thread derailing? I was disappointed that JQ deleted my comment relating to Keynesian consumption fetishism and how this can possibly be reconciled with concern for the environment – I threw the ball back in his court, and he couldn’t deal with it.
Alice, I don’t know why you think a government creates order. Order occurrs naturally through voluntary interaction. Security is necessary, but you see many other countries with strong governments and a lack of order. It’s the traditionally liberal small government anglo-saxon model that seems to provide the most order.
I’m a Hayekian, not a Rothbardian, so I won’t claim that government is completely unnecessary, but its contribution to security and stability is marginal at best.
4 November, 2009 at 17:18
ABOM
I’m a Rothbardian and have yet to see govt coercion work in any live case I’ve seen up close.
It is a miracle we’ve lasted this long without real markets.
Our luck is about to run out, because of this ridiculous idea that the real Mafia that steals from us each and every year somehow saves us from unseen dangers (terrorists, climate change, Swine Flu, the Scary Monster) whose risks are miniscule compared to the 100% certainty of State theft and oppression.
Give me liberty, or death!
In other words, give me death.
4 November, 2009 at 18:05
A few more comments to John Quiggin on climate, libertarian principles and the enclosure of the commons - TT`s Lost in Tokyo
[…] Writes commenter "ABOM", in a comment made elsewhere and linked back in to Quiggin`s thread (done for the purported reason that Quiggin was deleting some of ABOM`s comments) (emphasis added): […]
4 November, 2009 at 19:09
Alice
No Abom,
Its not the rise in interest rates that will hit the poor (and you know thats not what I man). Its the short sharp market driven corrections that libertarians seem so disposed to that hits the poor first and harshly. I can see another sort of correction ABOM apart from leaving the mess left behind by the gambling elites and its quite properly called a fiscal stimulus (and Id like to see taxes jacked up again on the rich). You reign in the source of the problem first. If it takes longer too bad – and at the same time you put money in peoples pockets at the bottom. Its more equitable, much more equitable. Its no good just saying leave it to the market when the market has been manipulated at the top ABOM.
What you do to correct it …is weight intervention in favour of the bottom. God knows we need to correct inequality or in a few years time it will all happen again.
4 November, 2009 at 19:10
Alice
Someone one day explain the difference between a Hayekian and a Rothbardian to me. I kind of like Rothbard meself!
Cant bring myself to quite trust that wife beater Hayek.
4 November, 2009 at 19:19
Alice
JQ is not a control freak. He is pretty good ABOM but seriously – take Sea Bass – he goes oin there -n sprays vitriol everywhere about the left – its not specific and most of the people there arent left anyway. What do you expect of JQ? A warm welcome? The left are at left focus or deep green sites. JQ us pretty damn balanced in my opinion. I dont like people who spray insults and I may as well say it..its the two or three word insult that is so grating…its the “Tony Abbott one liner sneer” – it seems to have become a most unattractive feature of some on the right (I wont say all on the right because I dont mind you or Andy – its just that Sea Bass is young and needs refinement – what the hell – I really dont even mind Sea Bass but he could do with a polish up)!!
BUT ABOM – if you were calling anyone watermelons you are in deep deep trouble with me!
4 November, 2009 at 19:41
ABOM
I’ve never called anyone a watermelon. Idiots, yes. Fools, yes. Commies, yes. Misguided, yes. Stupid, yes. Keynesians, yes (which combines all of the above). Not watermelons.
And Hayek wasn’t the wife beater. Hayek was a weak (sellout?) Austrian – the only Austrian to be accepted by the mainstream because he didn’t want to squash every central banker reptile hiding behind the rocks near the spiders. Unlike Rothbard and von Mises. Who did.
4 November, 2009 at 22:35
Sea-bass
Alice,
There you go. Hayek, Evil Overlord of Brutopia, was a weak, sell-out Austrian. I thought his nickname among other Austrian economists was “the Pinko”?
The main differences I believe are that Hayek (and Mises, perhaps to a lesser extent) saw government as having a necessary role in a minarchist sense, providing police, courts and defence forces. They believed some level of taxation was a necessary evil (Rothbard would have none of this). Hayek went a little further and maintained that a certain level of financial security should be provided to all citizens, although he still basically opposed the welfare state. He also saw fractional reserve banking as undesirable but somewhat unavoidable at the same time, and wasn’t gung ho about the gold standard.
Despite what ABOM says, he opposed central banking as well. The confusion arises because he was more a gradualist, and softened his position in many ways in order to be able to have some influence on policy (an Austrian Fabian perhaps?)
I think the Fabian approach would work quite nicely. After all, the Fabians have adopted the guise of “centrists” (the JQ bloggers spring to mind) and are slowly expanding the size of government while denying that they are socialist. Why can’t libertarians do the same?
5 November, 2009 at 08:35
ABOM
Sea-bass (hope you avoid the oil spill!)
You work on conciliation, gradualism and a “Fabian” approach to the brutal, coercive govt Mafia (good luck!). As I said before, I don’t think a gradualist approach works except for Fabians. Slow increase in govt works. Slow increase in free markets simply doesn’t happen. All a stupid slow bureaucrat has to do to kill a market is to legislate over it. Carbon tax gives govt God-like powers over industry (Mark of the Beast-style powers) so that’s why JQ and others salivate over it.
You have to kill the bureaucrat, and they don’t go easily. After all, they’re bureaucrats – they know they couldn’t survive in the real market. They are Gods if govt survives. They are beggers if it doesn’t (check out the old Marxist scholars selling cigarettes in Moscow). It’s a big fall for the JQs of the world and that’s not going to happen without a fight.
Hayek wrote one book (I thiink late in life) on de-nationalising free market money so I’m sure in his heart he knew what was right. He just wanted fame AND truth. You can’t have both in economics, as Mises (and especially Rothbard) found out.
5 November, 2009 at 09:14
ABOM
And following up on my earlier points regarding local currencies, nihilism, doom, global debt slavery and sudden reform of the monetary system…
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14773.html
Let it never be said that I didn’t reference my statements appropriately. You can question the substance of references, but at least I know what I’m talking about.
5 November, 2009 at 09:52
ABOM
The whole Ponzi-finance industry (including every mainstream economist and every employee of every central bank) summed up in one sentence:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/guest-post-wall-street-journal-admits-economists-were-wrong-but-fails-to-discuss-their-incentive-for-being-wrong.html
5 November, 2009 at 09:54
ABOM
Great quote from the comments section of the blog:
“The shameful state of academic economics is guaranteed by the process that selects and advances academic economists. This article mentions the mechanisms that keeps ambitious economists from criticizing the Fed, but the larger, overall biases favoring corporations, financial elites, and “free markets” are enforced at every step of a potential economist’s path to the happy comfort of a teaching job at a major university. Graduate students or tenure candidates are screened and weeded out by their betters if they don’t embrace the ideas that are pleasing to the corporate and private donors who endow chairs and build new, named business schools. The result is a privileged class of mandarins who are happy to keep their eyes carefully lowered and focused on their desks, studying equations and models, while economic crimes are going on outside the gates of academe.”
5 November, 2009 at 10:59
Alice
Its too late ABOM – I think some of the oil spill has trickled down on Sea Bass…..!.
I could not agree more with yor last para ABOM but it has been that way since the early 1970s when the students at Sydney Uni walked out the door and sat on the grass over the fawning directions (to the financial mandarins of one Warren Hogan – head of school – who of course later morphed into a senior economist for the ANZ bank.).
Yes, economics students have been told to put their heads down, ignore bad policies that dont work, keep following the dodgy financial markets models, make sure no-one can understand your economics except the banks.
Its a three step process 1) brilliant protege of the economics school mathematical models 2) job in Treasury or Reserve Bank 3) upscale career to heading up a large bank.
To get anywhere schools make sure potential economists jump down manholes, light themselves a candle, dont wear sandals, try to avoid scandals….get dressed, get blessed, try to be a success. Keep the models churning so the rich grow fat while the poor get stitched.
5 November, 2009 at 11:34
ABOM
Yes, it’s sad but true. Eventually this thing’s gonna blow, but when? We’ve dodged the bullet that has taken down the US and UK economies – a collapse in house prices. Steve Keen was clearly wrong on the timing of the depression:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Steve-Keen-finally-concedes-pd20091103-XETBW?OpenDocument&src=is&is=Property&blog=Concrete%20Detail
But will he eventually be right in his analysis of unsustainable debt?
I have bet on gold and silver. I haven’t been clearly negative on housing in Ausralia. Supply is tight – that’s the problem. Something’s gotta give. But honestly I don’t know what is going to break first – people’s ability to service the debt (this is crazy leverage; by world standards we’re nuts!) or the supply of housing (it is extremely tight) causing rents to soar again (how could they in this economic environment?).
I think a housing affordability/homelessness problem or an exchange rate crisis may eventually “solve” this problem. But Australia is walking the tightrope right now. How long can it keep defying gravity?
5 November, 2009 at 11:50
ABOM
Of course, the ultimate end-game in Australia is clear to me: Massive, unsolvable, environmental problems causing some communities to have to re-locate due to poisoning of the water table, drought, climate change, poisonous landfill (the amount of toxic e-waste is SHOCKING and govts are doing NOTHING about that, but JQ is screaming about imposing a carbon tax – talk about stuffed up priorities!) and poisoning of the sea in some specific areas (as well as erosion and other problems along the coastal fringes).
We’ll be lucky to be able to feed ourselves in 50 years.
So the end-game is clear – sudden environmental catstrophies resulting in population movement, disruption and social chaos. Especially when oil prices spike.
I’ve already seen the start of it, with some outlying suburbs in Melbourne being “condemned” because of flammable fumes and poisoning of landfill sites. Covered up by the media (of course). Property prices then collapse and ghost towns are the result. Property prices spike elsewhere – until another catastrophe occurs (e.g. Byron Bay beaches – erosion, Byron Bay sewage…under enormous stress now because of population issues – that will eventually destroy the town and people will then have to move again, to where?).
But how long this process of irreversible environmental destruction will take (50 or 100 years?), I don’t know.
Meanwhile, guessing short term movements in house prices is damn hard.
5 November, 2009 at 11:55
ABOM
Yes.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14792.html
And when the A$ falls hard and gold keeps rising even in US$ terms, then I will be in clover…
5 November, 2009 at 12:03
ABOM
You want to see the future? Look no further…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6480289/It-is-Japan-we-should-be-worrying-about-not-America.html
Great lessons for us, when the govt bond bubble bursts.
Watch the yen in the next few months. That will be what happens to the US dollar in two years’ time.
5 November, 2009 at 12:19
Alice
Well here is another little gem about the cosy deals done in Australia ABOM. Exxon is bailing out of the Quix petrol stations – cant compete with guess who ??Woolies and Coles.
They should have been cut up yonks ago , those two bastards.
PS Galbraith says you cant eat gold when it all goes phut, food and clothing – so it looks like framing land is right ABOM. Soros indicates so as well. Im thinking Armiidale is still looking good. They are putting in wind farms up near Glenn Innes somewhere now…
5 November, 2009 at 12:25
Alice
You cant do short term on house prices ABOM (gotta do medium term) – thats the trouble with it. Think five years. Ive now got a problem with some areas of central coast even though I know they have lost 30%. There is a little problem with the Entrance North for example (apart from not enough sea change retirees and no industry – so no rents from any other demo)
Its gonna sink under rising sea levels.
5 November, 2009 at 14:04
ABOM
Seriously if you find something around Armidale, post a note and I will get in contact with you. If this blows, we need to hole up somewhere with a reliable food supply – and farmers can legally own guns (another bonus).
At least we can talk about the b*stards that did this to us and we will both know who did it. I think you’re the only company I could tolerate when this all goes down. I know I couldn’t tolerate Andie (he’d still be trying to protect Goldman Sachs from any blame). I couldn’t stand the stupid lumpen general populace either. I certainly couldn’t stand JQ (he’d better not get close. I may shoot him – by mistake of course – as an intruder).
5 November, 2009 at 14:20
ABOM
“As if, in our wildest nightmares, leaving it to free markets would correct our problems with environmental degradation. Its so utterly absurd to even imagine that some people think that is the solution (I start to suspect some hideous toxin or accummulation of toxins in the food chain is at fault for gross diminution of cognitive abilities. That or people are lying through their back teeth by pushing the very idea. I suspect the latter. There is a need to ask why.)”
I can only very indirectly link this with bank liquidity management (both involve govts when they shouldn’t involve govts) but I’m sin binned on JQ’s site and cannot leave this alone.
Environmental degradation is being caused by the desperate need to feed the money machine – we are swimming in debt and in order to feed the debt beast we have to give real things in a kind of bizarre ritual sacrifice to the “market”. But the “market” has been DISTORTED by banks and govts and legal tender laws and central banks.
Around 30% (or more) of the working populations in the West are useless govt employees sucking resources off others or bankers or related to finance/law/regulation. This is all caused by govt. Low interest rates are caused by govt.
Read Michael Rowbotham to see how the monetary system is destroyed the environment. There are only two solutions: gold or FullRB and fiat issued by govt to develop green technologies.
Anyone who thinks the free market is to blame for our environmental problems is not looking at the problem deeply enough.
Rothbard WAS concerned (very concerned) about the environment. Years ago. Proof?
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
If you think govt is the answer, please travel to Eastern Europe. Or North Korea. Or Northern industrial China. Or Siberia. Or the Aral Sea.
Alice, you’re losing me if you keep blaming the “free market” for our environmental problems. (1) We are not in a free market (I’ve been screaming about this for last 1000 posts and you STILL don’t believe me?) (2) Free markets were killed in 1971 and our problems really ramped up after that (that’s govt for you!) (3) OVERconsumption is a DIRECT result of Keynesianism yet you don’t acknowledge the link (4) you can’t see that gold would reduce consumption and increase savings – OK few can, but at least do NOT say we are living in a free market. We are living in fascist times, and I don’t doubt very serious environmental problems will arise from FASCISM, not free markets.
Don’t blame something that doesn’t exist for a problem that arose after it died.
5 November, 2009 at 19:11
Alice
LOL ABOM – aside from the recent “disgracement” over at JQs…Im with you but dont accidentally shoot JQ at the farm. We need all the bullets we can get…for real troublemakers!!!
Dont GRR at me ABOM (not yet) – we cant have our first argument untill we get to the farm and then we can have a real barney down in the paddock – although when we are trying to grow vegetables we will probably be too tired to argue about economics.
Seriously..its nice up there in Armidale. Cold in winter, london type fogs, plenty of water, good pubs that cook slow roasted lamb shanks and open fires. I could get used to it. Somehow I think I could stand it with you too..arguments over free markets and all. Andy – he is a nice chap but he would probably be conratulating Goldman’s, I agree, in the middle of the chaos of our impoverishment and his…
Sea Bass might come in handy with some insults – if he is good at it, we wont have to shoot the intruders! They will just leave of their own free choices.
Gold is still rising and the Indians have bailed from the dollar have they?? Is it the start of a sell down? Is that why they are buying gold or are they buying gold with rupees? I have to read the rest later….ABOM. There is a show on the abc tonight I think..something about money. Watch it!!
5 November, 2009 at 21:30
ABOM
The IMF had to make a decision – China or India. They went with India probably (I’m speculating) so India can flood the Indian market if necessary. With a few billion people there could be chaos in India with a gold rush. Also the IMF and the West hates China. They want their trillions in paper bonds to vanish – gold won’t vanish so they want the poor retarded 3rd world central banks to have a fairly even distribution of gold when it explodes.
It is most definitely NOT the start of a sell down. China will be fuming. They have to buy gold on spot, which is damn frustrating (try to eat a steak through a straw and you know what it’s like to buy gold on spot).
If the second tranche doesn’t go to China..,oh boy…watch the spot price explode.
Sea Bass seems a bit of a smart *ss to be honest, so no he’s not coming along. JQ is dead if he comes within 500m of the place. Andie can call Goldman and beg them to supply him with pork belly futures so he can feed his family (ha ha ha!). It’s you and me, baby. And our families (of course!).
6 November, 2009 at 04:41
Andrew
ABOM,
If you continue to use this blog to try to get around JQ’s ban then I will automoderate or ban you – a step I have never yet taken with very few – in fact, only you before.
Stick to the topic of go away and get your own blog and post whatever you want over there. I can bear to deal with your normal rubbish, but I will not put up with secondhand rubbish. Complain about it if you want – but the more complaints I need to deal with the closer you will come to auto-moderation.
6 November, 2009 at 08:35
ABOM
(1) Alice specifically asked about this issue here. It was not as though I started this thread unprompted (2) Bank liquidity management is affected by catastrophes (creating higher liquidity preferences) so this discussion is not irrelevant to the topic at hand (3) Censorship is unbecoming of a supposedly “free market” guy. Given the narrow readership of this blog and the likely low proportion of readers who take the time to read the comments section, I doubt these are comments would have been read by many people in any case.
I also have health issues which will mean I will not post very much in future in any case. Good luck to all.
6 November, 2009 at 09:25
Andrew
ABOM,
Boasting about using this blog in that way does not hep your case much.
6 November, 2009 at 10:12
ABOM
Where did I boast?
Staying on topic:
“But Mr Johnson said the banks’ comments should be “dismissed out of hand” given that local banks remained vulnerable to systemic shocks, given the STRUCTURAL FLAWS of lending more than they held as deposits and “cross holdings” of liquidity, where banks borrow short-term funds from one another.
“Reducing the risk posed by inappropriate funding structures and less-than-robust liquidity regimes are on the near-term reform agenda for bank regulators globally,” Mr Johnson said.
Mr Johnson said suggestions that Australian banks passed through the global financial crisis largely unscathed was incorrect given that access to funding was a major challenge.
A range of actions by the Federal Government, such as economic stimulus packages and access to a guarantee on wholesale funding, as well as moves by the Reserve Bank, including interest rate cuts, had been key to the survival of the sector, he said.
“APRA should run a campaign that the Australian banks should ‘get real’. Liquidity reform is coming whether they like it or not,” Mr Johnson said.”
Today’s SMH.
Structural flaws. Structural flaws. In bank liquidity management. In Australia? Could it be that they lend “too much” and take in “too little” in REAL deposits, relying on overseas funding and selling RMBS on the wholesale market overseas? Which is more volatile, the overseas wholesale market or the average depositor?
6 November, 2009 at 10:30
ABOM
I’m so sick I shouldn’t even be on a computer, but this is gold…
“The response was that banks don’t mark to market because, well, that’s just not what they do – since they hold assets to maturity. It was also pointed out that if banks had been required to mark to market, the system would have been insolvent multiple times in the past 50 years. I almost laughed – that was my whole point – just because you pretend that the system is not insolvent doesn’t mean that it’s not insolvent! Holding assets to maturity does not mean you’ll receive your principal back, obviously. ”
http://fridayinvegas.blogspot.com/2009/11/sit-down-with-senior-treasury-officials.html
I am (yet again) reminded of the debate above:
ABOM: What are you talking about Andrew? Your misunderstand me (that happens quite often). I’m not saying they should be exempt. I’m actually saying banks are inherently illiquid/insolvent, with liquidity issues only being covered up by the existence of a central bank. There is no possibility of a 100% protection against bank runs without the existence of a central bank ready to print like Hell.
“Bank liquidity management” is an oxymoron. They are inherently illiquid institutions because they borrow short to lend long. That’s what banks DO. All they can do is anticipate the next bust and cash up before the wave hits. That’s the skill in banking – getting off the Titanic before anyone else notices the ship is sinking.
Andrew: Bollocks, ABOM. As I have explained many, many times a debt (under all forms of commercial law) is payable as and when it falls due. A bank deposit is a debt from a bank to the depositor and falls due as and when the depositor calls it – subject to the contract between the bank and the depositor. If you cannot understand that then you really do not deserve any time or attention. Bank are no more “inherently illiquid” than any other commercial enterprise. They have risks and they deal with them.
Now the VERY SAME POINT is discussed at the highest levels between STO and 8 highly qualified bloggers. And the bloggers (clearly) win.
I get no respect.
6 November, 2009 at 15:22
ABOM
THIS is a liquidity management problem…
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14818.html
Ahhhh…back to the good old days of a REAL bank run. On GOLD.
6 November, 2009 at 15:36
ABOM
Please God of Justice and Light, let this worldwide gold rush be a lesson to every reptilian banker on earth.
And let the (human debt slave) people be reminded of Rothbard’s timeless words:
“It should be clear that modern fractional reserve banking is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme, a fraud in which fake warehouse receipts are issued and circulate as equivalent to the cash supposedly represented by the receipts.” (pp. 96–97).
Gold. Is. Real. Money.
7 November, 2009 at 14:38
Why waste your time? « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/ […]
7 November, 2009 at 21:03
Fractional reserve banking as a lie « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] Fractional reserve banking as a lie By karmaisking I’ve thought about fractional reserve banking quite a lot. Here. Here. Here and here. […]
8 November, 2009 at 20:36
I don’t like John Quiggin « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] out on the comments section of his blog and banning me for a week. Mortally wounded, I sought refuge on the ozrisk.net website, where Andrew Reynolds (barely) tolerates my numerous, voluminous […]
9 November, 2009 at 10:35
The Titanic analogy « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] time your escape from the Titanic. To be precise, in a “discussion” (argument?) over bank liquidity management here I said […]
9 November, 2009 at 18:48
Alice
ABOM – its you and me at Armidale (if we have to take the family – we had better).
I cant stand you being banned from JQs. How much longer?. I dont even care anymore. Ive had a horrible week…and Im so sick and tired of economic policy. Its all garbage ABOM. The rich just get away with everything as they always did.
Stockmarket is full of it…how? Just tell me how??
10 November, 2009 at 15:58
My worldview « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] By karmaisking There was a neat summary of my positions on banking, the economy and the future here at ozrisk.net. Andrew Reynolds didn’t dispute the analysis so I assume he agrees with my characterisation […]
10 November, 2009 at 18:35
Andrew
ABOM,
If you knew what you were talking about then I would be worried – but then you would not be saying what you are.
11 November, 2009 at 22:25
karmaisking
Check out my recent posts on David Morgan and…ummm..other recent topics. They are hot as Hell. I’m sure you will find them intriguing.
13 November, 2009 at 13:43
karmaisking
Karmaisking on APRA’s calls for liquidity management and a sober response to respected banker Dr David Morgan’s analysis.
Sober. Yeah right. Ha Ha Ha!
http://karmaisking.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/dr-david-morgan-proves-my-argument-beautifully/
13 November, 2009 at 18:16
Alice
Where are you Abom??
Im missing you. Is your time up at JQs yet. I agree Arimdale looking better and better every time I go on realestate.com.
13 November, 2009 at 18:17
Alice
I havent been to collect my teacup and tea yet Abom. Im so sorry. I will collect it if Jessica is back from holidays. I think we should have a real cup of tea one day!
13 November, 2009 at 18:17
Andrew
Alice,
He is at his blog. If you cannot put two and two together and work out where that is then I doubt you are worth your “out of control” salary.
14 November, 2009 at 04:20
Silvy
Australia is heading a serious credit crisis of $50 billion of commercial lending maturing in 2010. Overseas Europe has $350 billion in commercial lending coming up for maturity and the US has mortgage resets of over $225 billion this credit crisis is far from over. Check out http://www.jpminvestmentgroup.com.au for more information.
JPM Investment Group
14 November, 2009 at 17:35
Alice
What out of control salary Andy?? Please emlighten me. If you knew what I really earned you would be horrified…..Ive been casual for 14 years every semester Andy!!
Now, please tell me your salary and you would wonder how I lived (wheeling and dealing but lets talk about that some other time…)
Where is ABOMs blog more importantly Andy??
14 November, 2009 at 17:36
Alice
What blog is ABOMs? Andy – spill the beans now! Dont play games with me…post the link!!
14 November, 2009 at 21:39
Andrew
He has changed his name again. Look for ABOM style comments up the thread.
I will give you a hint – it is not “Silvy”.
15 November, 2009 at 21:44
Alice
Kamaisking?
15 November, 2009 at 23:54
Andrew
Bingo.
16 November, 2009 at 08:40
Alice
I wish I was skiing too Andy. (no I dont really. I hate the cold and wet snow).
Andy, for a liberal or libertarian or whatever, you are a nice guy!.
1 December, 2009 at 15:16
I like Hugo Chavez « Karmaisking's Blog
[…] have previously argued (as ABOM) that a return to a gold standard OR nationalisation of the banking system is preferable to […]
9 February, 2010 at 10:52
ABOM
Karma takes time. But gets you in the end. Every time.
Risk expert Andrew’s call on the govt debt guarantee: “ABOM,
There was no need for the guarantee in Australia.”
Six months later, everyone’s getting nervous now the guarantee is being lifted.
I note that it was fun while is lasted. The “clueless taxpayer” guarantee was quickly exploited by the likes of Mac Bank. They went on a lending spree with the taxpayers money, setting up a “crack team” to issue govt-guaranteed bonds, and immediately turning around and lending that money to all and sundry with a nice lttle margin on top. Nice work if you can get it.
Now, as reported in today’s AFR and SMH, some banks are (surprise, surprise!) wimpering over the loss of mommy’s skirtstrings. Understandable, given that they have to face the harsh cold winds of the wholesale market just at the time when that market is again getting twitchy over PIGS not flying.
By the way, a statistical analysis of the volatility in the international wholesale debt markets would (undoubtedly) show that this source of funding is massively more volatile (both in terms of pricing and liquidity) than deposit-sourced funding (which is implicitly guaranteed by the govt and explicitly guaranteed up to $1 million).
Why are banks like the Cth and Westpac so reliant on funding from a source that has (1) massive exchange rate risk (2) massive liquidity risk (Q4, 2008) (3) very volatile pricing (Q4, 2008 and now with PIGS causing a spike in the costs of wholesale debt)? Because they don’t want to fight for deposits. Why? Possibly because they knew that a fight for deposits would also reduce demand for domestic borrowing if this caused a spike in interest rates for deposits. And because prior to 2008 it was cheaper to access the wholesale markets.
But now, it’s all turned on its head – deposits are probably the cheapest, and lowest risk way to fund lending right now. Good old fractional reserve banking is back.
The major Oz banks (who thought they were so smart getting “cheaper” funding in the wholesale markets and turning themselves into debt “retailers”) are sitting (retail) ducks if the international wholesale market freezes up again. I just hope they know what they’re doing.
9 February, 2010 at 13:06
Andrew
ABOM,
A few small banks are not “everybody”. If a bank cannot raise debt in this environment then they should not be operating. Meanwhile, the federal government has made $5.5bn in fees and had to pay out a grand total of $0.00 under the guarantee.
What better illustration is there that it was not needed?
9 February, 2010 at 16:32
karmaisking
Andrew,
You know I respect your knowledge of banking, but let me give you an Austrian perspective on supply and demand.
The Federal govt “made” $5.5 bn in fees because banks (large AND small) availed themselves of the opportunity to use the AAA-rated credit rating of Mr Clueless Taxpayer of Oz to issue bonds.
Now, if they thought they could have done this more cheaply WITHOUT the guarantee, then logically they would have. So it is clear the banks considered it “worthwhile” to pay for the “service”.
What was the “service”? Being able to use the AAA rating of the Federal Govt to raise billions of $$$s on international wholesale markets.
What did the Feds get in return? $5.5bn. And approximately $210 bn in CONTINGENT liabilities that now must appear on the Fed’s balance sheet. If ANY of those banks go bust in the next 100 years, the taxpayer stands behind these debts.
On this issue, see this excellent piece from the SMH. The irony of bankers paying big bucks for prestige properties off bonuses that are (at least in part) financed by the Federal govt and the taxpayer! Double that irony when you consider that a lot of those govt-guaranteed bonds went into increasing house prices through increased mortgage debt. So the middle class gets slugged a left and a right and an upper-cut. Whilst the banker (whose job is protected by the Feds) gets to choose between a Terry Hills mansion and a Mosman mansion. No wonder they’ve done such a shocking job on liquidity and risk management. They’re too busy looking at mansions to worry about the “real” risks inherent in banking. Ha Ha Ha!
http://www.smh.com.au/business/guarantee-expiry-may-spark-funding-rush-20100207-nktl.html
9 February, 2010 at 16:45
karmaisking
And my fundamental point (that you appear to have missed) was that we had a “difference of opinion” regarding the banks’ need for a govt guarantee.
Surely the SMH piece, confirming that the banks are now rushing to issue govt-guarantee paper before the expiry date (and some smaller banks beggin for an extension) suggests that they did (and they do?) need it.
What does this say about their (1) liquidity management (2) risk profile (3) deposit base (4) funding structure (5) sustainability as a business (6) international reputation as a stand alone business (7) financial prudence (8) sophistication as a financial institution?
The bottom line (which I’m sure we can agree on) is that if any financial institution paying millions in bonuses still needs “mommy” to hold its little hand, it deserves to fail.
They should all grow up.
I trust you agree. If you do, let’s see how many of the smaller banks survive on their own two feet in the next 18 months. It will be interesting…
9 February, 2010 at 20:24
karmaisking
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/head-of-bis-calls-for-bigger-liquidity-buffers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
Back to the future?
10 February, 2010 at 01:50
Andrew
A few points there.
1. This is simply wrong – “ANY of those banks go bust in the next 100 years”. The guarantee is only good for the term of any bonds issued under it – and that is for the (IIRC) next 3 years, maximum.
2. You imply that because they used it, they needed it. Remind me of that next time I have a beer. I drank it, therefore I needed it. Wonderful logic.
3. I would agree that, if the only way they could raise debt would be to rely on a government guarantee then they should fail. No argument there, nor have I ever said or implied any different.
The guarantee was still completely unnecessary, and was the panicked reaction of a government that did not (and still does not) understand banks.
10 February, 2010 at 01:54
Andrew
As I said earlier on the bonuses and the rest. If someone comes up to you and tells you that you must take a whole heap of cash or suffer the consequences (as the Fed did to several banks, including Goldman’s) I do not believe that this entitles the Fed (or anyone else) to have a say in the management of the bank.
Imagine the situation in the private sector – a person comes up to you, sticks a gun in your ribs and tells you to borrow some money from them. They then say that you must manage your life according to their whims.
There is a term for that – and it is not “prudential monetary policy”.
10 February, 2010 at 12:00
karmaisking
Andrew,
That’s a brilliant analogy! Govt-guaranteed bond issuance and addiction to a drug. The question is:
Can the banks go “cold turkey” when PIGS aren’t flying?
Of course, you’re right on the termination date of the bonds. My implicit point is that if the GFC kicks in again when the term of these bonds matures, I suspect the govt will do the same thing again. In other words, this sad episode has been a signal to the banks: “Lend recklessly, madly, crazily, insanely and you will be bailed out somehow by the govt. So drown every sucker with a pulse in unsustainable debt, grab the bonuses and let the sucker govt take care of the problem later.”
If you think this is a sustainable financial system, then you’re crazier than I am. At some point, the bonds will mature (around the same time as the borrower’s debt rollovers are kicking in) bad debts will spike and the govt will have to do the same thing all over again. Just like the FHBG, a “short term” expediency becomes a crucial permanenet crutch for the economy or the whole house of cards collapses. As an example, if you half the FHBG and cut the LVR ratio from 93% to 87% (as Westpac is considering) I think you go from being able to borrow $600k to being able to borrow something like $400k. That’s a big reduction in anyone’s language. Something is gonna break this year. I don’t whether it’s going to be the wholesale market (CDS are spiking up again), the exchange rate (how can our banks get access to the wholesale market if the A$ tanks?), or actual house prices (it’s coming eventually). But this thing isn’t going to keep flying for much longer.
10 February, 2010 at 12:09
karmaisking
“halve” not “half” and “I don’t know”.
I’m so worried about these graphs that my hands have been shaking this morning. They can’t be accurate, surely? If so, why isn’t the Dow down to 5000?
http://2020speculator.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/be-close-to-a-food-source-and-far-away-from-other-people/
10 February, 2010 at 17:23
Andrew
I had a discussion with Mencius Moldbug on the sustainability of our curent system here a while back.
As for the idea that a bank cannot be expected to replace the $290bn in guaranteed debt once it comes up to roll, that is clearly not the case for most, if not all, banks. If it is true for any of them, then they deserve to fail.
Nothing complex there.
10 February, 2010 at 19:45
karmaisking
Completely agree Andrew. Again I respect your analysis, but have (slight) doubts about your powers of prediction.
“ABOM, There was no need for the guarantee in Australia.” Now we find the banks racing to issue guaranteed bonds before the deadline runs out.
“As for the idea that a bank cannot be expected to replace the $290bn in guaranteed debt once it comes up to roll, that is clearly not the case for most, if not all, banks.” Hmmm… Have you carefully studied the volatility (in both liquidity and pricing) in the international wholesale debt markets over the last 3 years? Again, if you think it’s “guaranteed” (ha ha ha!) that they will ALL be able to access international debt markets on rollover, you are a very brave man. I’d prefer that they source their funding from good old deposits (attracting depositors with competitive interest rates) rather than rely on the backdoor method of the international wholesale markets. Dumb retailers often find that the wholesale costs of a “precious” commodity can spike without notice. And money is (always) a precious commodity. Especially $290bn of the stuff, when we already have one of the highest private debt levels in the world (see Steve Keen’s debt deflation website for some shocking numbers on private debt – how much debt can the sucker-consumer eat up?). I hope I don’t have to post again on this blog in 3 years…
10 February, 2010 at 20:21
Andrew
karmaisking,
If the current ideas to increase regulation come to fruition I think it is unlikely that it will take only 3 years for the next bust.
As for all of them having access to international debt markets – I never said such a thing. Most of the smaller institutions do not have that access and have never had that access.
10 February, 2010 at 21:23
karmaisking
Andrew, I saw an interview with the head of Bank of Queensland where he was (gently) suggesting the govt extend the guarantee. So some of them have definitely been using the govt guarantee and want to continue to do so.
I assume you’re referring to the proposed increases in the liquidity requirements for 2011, suggested by APRA and proposed by BIS. The argument is we don’t have sufficiently deep govt debt markets to move some liquidity requirements across from inter-bank to govt debt AND that these changes will cause a credit crunch in Oz.
I would suggest gold be used as an alternative to govt debt to allow sufficiently deep, liquid markets in times of systemic risk. But then no one ever listens to me…
15 February, 2010 at 14:14
Andrew
karmaisking,
If I could borrow on the government purse by paying only a small premium, I would also argue that this arrangement should continue. That does not mean I would collapse without it.
Gold is already effectively accepted as an HQLA by APRA in several circumstances – you have to apply for it under section 12(e) of APS 210 – but IIRC few actually use it as it pays no interest.
Under most circumstances selling the gold to buy government debt is better under the regulations. To me, the regulations seem to be set up to make government debt easy to sell – but then giving an advantage to government seems to be the effect of many regulations.
20 February, 2010 at 18:24
karmaisking
Bingo! It’s not about the objective risk profile of govt debt (Dr John Laker actually stated that there is “no risk” of govt debt default – try telling that to holders of PIIG debt). Gold is the ultimate protection against systemic risk because it is the only monetary asset without any counterparty risk.
It’s about allowing govt to finance its deficits more easily.
Of course, with free banking there would be no need for these ridiculous, suffocating, mindless, ever-changing, defective regulations. Banks would be free to calibrate their own asset position – and if they got it wrong they would die and the directors and employees would be out in the street.
Simple. Google “Free Banking” to find out more.
20 February, 2010 at 18:36
Andrew
karmaisking,
What – are you trying to teach me about free banking? You are the one that keeps spouting Rothbard.