Exactly. And 10 years after the crash - the fact that the first paragraph of this article is factually wrong (thereby illustrating a lot of what is still wrong with macro-economic analysis) - goes unremarked.
Banks do not lend their deposits. (That's what a fund does.) Banks create deposit money when they make a loan, and statistically multiplex asset cash against deposits to manage transfers of money within the banking system. Repayment of loans then removes the created deposit money from the system.
I might have an inkling of what this comment is saying, but I'm not sure. As written it almost sounds like the description of a ponzi scheme or a more pedantic means of saying "they lend out the money given to them by depositors" ... anyone around who could clarify this a bit?
Yes it's a multiplier scheme and if you squint just right, it's pretty much a ponzi too. But it isn't a pedantic way of restating "lend out".
Discussion of the issue is often fraught with accusations of conspiracy theory. Austrian economists (widely regarded as kooky by the establishment) have a bunch of books related to these issues perhaps the best of which is Rothbard.
Austrian economists make a few valid criticisms of mainstream economic theory. The thing is, that's very easy to do. What's not so easy is to offer a superior economic model. Their ideas, last I checked, don't involve any math; that is fine, but it makes Austrian theory unfalsifiable, and therefore it can't really be shown to be a valid alternative.
Austrians say they use praxeology. They approach economic problems through deduction. This should make some of their theories falsifiable. After all, if you can't find evidence for the notion of opportunity cost, then it can't be a valid concept.
I think that the problem with Austrian economics is that relying on praxeology and deduction is like doing theoretical physics - you make assumptions, do logic based on those assumptions and see if it fits the real world. It can work, but it's slow.
> don't involve any math [and so is] ... unfalsifiable
A theory involving math is only better than the alternative if it is also correct. Theories can be falsifiable if they don't have math either.
For example, I might have a theory that water always flows downhill. Then I am confronted with a pump, and my theory is now falsified. Fitting a mathematical model involving gravitational constants and laminar flows will be a better theory because it fits the observations very well.
A theory that I have porridge for breakfast in a way that can be modeled with an iid normal distribution is a terrible theory, because if I find out about it I'll start playing with my breakfast just to spite the modeler. The inclusion of a precise mathematical model just paints a bigger target for me to hit. Economics is much more in that vein of things - the people being modeled can respond to the models themselves.
The mainstream economics theories are all going to be based on non-mathematical assumptions that link reality to a math-y model. Those assumptions are the weak point of economics. We can trust the academics to get the math right once they've finished making assumptions.
Your interpretation of my statement isn't accurate. Austrian theory's lack of mathematical formalization is what makes it unfalsifiable. It's not your water example; if it were, then you would be correct.
Again, it is easy and often valid to criticize the methodologies associated with mainstream econ, but the question is whether one can offer a demonstrably superior alternative. You have not done that here.
> but the question is whether one can offer a demonstrably superior alternative
That isn't the only question. There is also a question "is there something here that we can model?". There is no requirement to provide a better model if the existing model is inaccurate enough.
I've never actually seen an economic model that uses maths beyond accounting balances or basic calculus/timeseries so I'm certainly not qualified to critique them - whatever they are.
But the Austrain critiques seem to be something like that if you blow a credit bubble then manipulating accounting identities isn't enough to avoid having to pay back the credit at some point and taking an economic fall where the credit gave you a boost. That is a falsifiable position. The Americans and others are running a big experiment that has so far provided potentially falsifying evidence. They can still be proven wrong even though they havn't published an equation, so their theories are obviously falsifiable.
Remember, fractional reserve banking started when the Rothschildren decided it was OK to tell their depositors their deposits were in the safe, when the bank had actually given it to other people.
Our banking system is founded on a lie.
I suggest a valid alternative is the truth. If someone gives you their money and it's your job to store it safely you should to that. For 100% of that money. Not 10% of it.
That is both historically untrue and stinks of anti-Semitic slander passed as fact - following the age old tradition of blaming the Jews for mismanagement by nobles and royals because that wouldn't get you executed. The Rothschildren were certainly /not/ the first being established in the 18th century. Given that the more reputable central Swedish bank used it in the 15th century - let alone the shadier practices of other banknote institutions that predated them.
As for the 100% retention idea it is like complaining that a car isn't a faster horse. There may be some fringe cases when the horse is better but most of the time the primary use was going fast across paved roads.
To be a good steward involves investment - just any asset sitting stored is a waste of value and will not even preserve it against inflation. It is the red queen's race.
OK i restate. Replace, in my original post, "Rothschildren" with "goldsmithers." I didn't even know they were Jews and that whole bit is ad hominem at best. But my point remains.
My money is not the bank's asset. Neither is the stuff I put in a storage unit at public storage.
Imagine if they were loaning out your stuff while you were away.
If I choose to invest my money that's my right. It's not your right to choose how I invest my money.
Going faster isn't a reason why it should be OK to steal people's money when you're saying you're keeping it safe.
Lies like this brought down the entire world economy. Wars were started. Lives were lost. But you suggest it's better except when it's not?
>a more pedantic means of saying "they lend out the money given to them by depositors"
As the other commenter mentioned: they lend out more money than the depositors gave them. It works roughly along these lines: depositors give the bank $10 million. The bank can now make loans worth $100 million (or some such number depending on the type of debt). They're creating money "out of thin air".
Neffy probably knows more about how it actually works, but what I described is the basic principle of fractional reserve banking.
The 'fractional reserve banking' model is just wrong. (That there are no real reserve requirements in places like Canada or the UK, should really tell people this).
In reality it works like this. Loans create deposits. So you lend $10 million and end up with $10 million of loans and $10 million of deposits. The regulator then says you have insufficient capital, so you issue equity or bonds to the tune of $1 million and convince 10% of your depositors to swap their deposits (that you created) for that equity/bond by setting an appropriate interest rate on it.
Rinse and repeat until you run out of people to lend to at a price they are prepared to pay.
Neither deposits, nor equity have a quantity control function. It's all about the price, not the quantity.
In other words the amount of money in the system floats at the current price of money.
That is factually wrong. You have significant capital requirement both in term of RWA or Leverage Exposure (the latter is more likely to be binding for mortgages), particularly in the UK which along with Switzerland gold pleated every international (BIS, EU) regulations.
Banks cannot extend their balance sheet indefinitely, and if you look at UK banks, they significantly deleveraged since the financial crisis, as they adapted to new regulations.
In fact these capital requirements, along with increased liquidity requirement are probably why the multiplier effect considerably reduced after the crisis.
It's factually correct. Deposits are created and then converted into the required capital at a price. To buy equity you need to use a deposit, and that comes from a prior loan. That's just how it works.
Same with liquidity which is just increased amounts of loans to the central bank (government) in the form of government bonds. Collateral uplift can give you that.
All these just add to the cost of the bank, which changes the price and that reduces the number of people taking the loans. But the fact remains that the quantity floats at the current price of money. Liquidity and capital requirements just change the current price of money.
> It works roughly along these lines: depositors give the bank $10 million. The bank can now make loans worth $100 million (or some such number depending on the type of debt). They're creating money "out of thin air".
I think this is an oversimplification to the point where it is misleading.
Banks can't literally create money like this. What happens is that if a bank has $10m in deposits, they have $10m to loan out, but not more. In practice, they are limited by how much they can loan out by the fractional reserve. If that limit is 10%, then this bank can loan out $9m, so there is now $19m in existence.
If you follow this out to the limit, you get $100m with $10m of initial deposits and a fractional reserve of 10%, but a bank can't just multiply its money by 100%/10% and loan out that much money.
Sadly it does: in practice there are 5 big banks in an economy. Maybe less.
So let's say a bank has $10m deposits. You're right: they will lend out $10 million, most of that in mortgages, a bit in business loans, a tiny bit in personal loans. Mortgages come with the condition that you don't get the money, you get to write a checque (or do a bank transfer), verified by an official like a notary public. Now you might notice ... so wait ... they lend you money that you can only deposit into another bank account (and then very likely stays in that bank account) ?
So that means they can pull this: $10 million in deposits. They lend out $10 million, $9.5 ends up into accounts in that same bank and become deposits. So now they have $9.5 million in new deposits and $10 million in assets (money people owe them). Plus an additional $1 million in interests. Because there's only 5 banks where money can be kept, they're pretty much guaranteed, once above a certain size, to keep or exchange 1:1 deposits created from loans in their bank.
So now they lend out the new deposits ... and of course also the assets. So now they lend out a further $21.5 million. Next step is a further ~$40 million. In most of the world laws specify that they can only multiply ~50 times this way (Australia being a very notable exception).
So with $10 million in source deposits a bank would lend out a little less than half a billion $.
Obviously in practice it's 100 times more complex than described above. For example, banks will usually sell a good part of those assets, like loans, and then take that as a profit, and pay it out to shareholders. This changes their risk profile in positive ways. There's business loans which mostly (the larger amounts at least) work like mortgages but not entirely. There's international transactions, ...
The thing to remember is: large amounts of money simply don't "really exist". Starting at maybe $100 million it is simply not possible to "have" that amount of money. Something else is happening, some financial construction is involved.
It’s important to understand that they don’t typically lend out 10x. My business banker (WF) said they have trouble lending out 0.5x. There’s just not enough high quality lending opportunities.
It's called fractional reserve lending... and it works until it doesn't. As long as your "divedsified" losses are less than (~10% of loans) your reserve collateral (actual Treasuries and Rentable real estate) which generate cash or can be used to pay taxes... then you're solvent. If not then assume the Fed will bail you out... they did last time.
Meanwhile, you can lever your "low risk" loan income 10x so that 1-3% marginal yield looks like 10-30% profit. Hard to give up that crack pipe!
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.. The fault tolerance of banks using FRB, is approximately 1% of loan capital per year. Any more than that, and they are driven into regulatory incompliance - which then has monetary significance.
Reserves don't actually play a roll in loss management, bad loans have to be written off against loss provisions and/or profits - liability/equity accounts. Basel 3 has put mandatory limits on how much loss provisions/capital has to be held, but it hasn't solved the fundamental problem with the interaction with the money supply.
Banks do not lend their deposits. (That's what a fund does.) Banks create deposit money when they make a loan, and statistically multiplex asset cash against deposits to manage transfers of money within the banking system. Repayment of loans then removes the created deposit money from the system.