Banks are allowed to hold fractional reserves (bank assets) cuz all of their customers, in aggregate, are unlikely to move all of their deposits (bank liabilities) to another bank simultaneously β e.g. a "run on the bank" (for which we now have backstops like FDIC)...
/6
β¦ plus, if both the construction co and his supplier have checking accounts at the same bank (e.g. Bank ABC), then no reserves necessary to settle a payment fm π·ββοΈβ‘οΈπββοΈ:
The deposit liability just shifts fm π·ββοΈ's to πββοΈ's account, so Bank ABCβs reserve assets are irrelevant π
/7
Fractional reserves are only required because regulators want to make sure every bank has enough for any reasonable amount of customer transfers/withdrawals from one bank to another (again, transfers from one customer to another within the same bank don't require reserves)...
/8
After Bank ABC has made a loan (π€=πβοΈπ΅), it can then acquire the required fractional reserves from a number of means, including:
β’ idle reserves on its own balance sheet (π¦π§Ύ);
β’ the interbank market (Fed Funds π¦β¬ οΈπ§Ύπ’); or
... so Bank ABC better make sure itβs loan asset is good enough to pay it more than the cost of borrowing from the Fed β or it can find cheaper sources of reserves π
/11
... to replace expensive reserves from Fed, Bank ABC can try:
β’ interbank mkt (Fed Funds π¦β¬ οΈπ§Ύπ’);
β’ attract new customer deposits+reserves from another bank (π¦β¬ οΈπ§ΎπΈπ’π§π»); or
All these banks making all these balance sheet management decisions is a very distributed system of money/credit creation, for which banks are constrained since required reserves acquired on unsecured basis (e.g. printed ex nihilo/by fiat πͺπ§Ύ) are prohibitively expensiveβ¦
/13
Each bank has to manage its own cost of liabilities (e.g. deposits or debt) vs return on assets (e.g. loans) βοΈ...
Reserve assets have little-to-no rate of return β they usually weigh on Bank ABC in either nominal (expensive Discount Windowπ₯΅) or real (inflationποΈββοΈ) terms...
/14
... but the Fed can choose to pay banks interest on required or excess reserves (IOER), which are monetary policy means of toggling credit creation by changing banksβ IRR equations βοΈ and opportunity costs (e.g. IOER from sitting on excess reserves vs ROA from lending)
/15
Again, banks are incentivized to not indiscriminatly lend/create credit, because:
β’ Bank ABC needs to squeeze a required rate of return from its assets (loans/reserves/Tbills) less its liabilities (debt/deposits)βοΈ;
β’ Fed is constantly rebalancing that systemic spread
/16
If a Bank ABC loan asset defaults ππ, it won't receive future deposits+reserves that it needs (from borrower's P&I repayments), so it will eventually have to deplete or acquire other reserve assets to honor other customers' transfers to other banks...
/17
... all else equal, loan asset impairment ππ hurts the value of Bank ABC's capital base (βοΈequity = assets - liabilities)
... too much loan asset impairment ππ₯ wipes out the bank's capital β and it won't be able to sustainably source new capital:
1οΈβ£ scale legal system to exact individual user liability (in cases of legal abuse a la brandenburg or libel)?
2οΈβ£ more democratic solution for everything else (instead of centralized corporate arbiters)?
... I proposed arbitration as least bad solution for 1οΈβ£ and @sheeraf's Myanmar example was best exhibit of what I called the "geopolitical problem"
... but can we talk about the US only for a sec?
... I know, 'home country bias', etc; but 1οΈβ£ is in the spirit of domestic progress on these issues in light of congressional hearings β specifically the *legal* aspects of free speech on social media per US law β so I wanted to focus on that
"a naively optimistic perception
fueled by a false narrative (vs an inevitably flawed reality) is the more dangerous of the two... a la Tim Cook and Apple"
... dollar volume matters as much as (if not more than) market cap:
e.g. speculators in singlenames can be marginal buyers inflating prices (with asymmetric size bias due to bandwagon a la $aapl $tsla) by reducing supply for more structural ETF demand
@DaveNadig interview with ARK COO did a deep dive into the ETF family's liquidity/capacity hypotheticals (spoiler alert: ARK's ETF-mandated transparency means investors are buying $arkk, et al to own the underlying)
Friedman's maxim "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" is somewhat apt here -- albeit somewhat inaccurate in its original context (i.e. money supply causation)...