All Blog Comments

Geçici Dövme - The € Trilemma

Geçici Dövme — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 02:37:54 +0000

Best chemical

Geçici Dövme - Proud to be Austrian ;-)

Geçici Dövme — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 02:33:48 +0000

Good site

Geçici Dövme - Tumblr Quote

Geçici Dövme — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 02:32:21 +0000

Best post

Geçici Dövme - I’m an Eco Hippie!

Geçici Dövme — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 02:31:39 +0000

Kaliteli bbir proje

Geçici Dövme - Porn & Disney Brainwashing

Geçici Dövme — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 02:30:33 +0000

Thank you

xxxTrading - Tumblr Video

xxxTrading — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:13:52 +0000

Liegt es irgendwie an mir das ich das Video nicht sehen kann oder ist es generell ein Fehler??? Schade wollte mir gerne das Video ansehen...

Gelddruckmaschine - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Gelddruckmaschine — Tue, 19 May 2015 09:41:23 +0000

Da kann ich mich nur anschließen Hr. Dilger. So sieht es nämlich aus...

Stephan Ewald - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Stephan Ewald — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:36:37 +0000

@Bremer Nur damit wir uns nicht missverstehen Hr/Fr Bremer. Ich bin da ganz bei ihnen. Über Eigenkapital-Regelungen, über Banken-Regulierung und über Banken-Abwicklung in der Eurozone müssen wir diskutieren. Der Punkt meines zugegeben launischen Kommentars war, dass Herr Sinn plötzlich die Bilanzsumme einer Bank als neue Kennzahl in die Diskussion eingebracht hat. Mehr nicht. Das ist mehr als unüblich und das werden sie auch nicht in ihrer Buchempfehlung - sehr gutes Buch! - finden.

Stephan Ewald - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Stephan Ewald — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:29:01 +0000

@Dilger Einverstanden. Auf diese Summen wird es zwar nie hinauslaufen aber wir sind uns wahrscheinlich einig, dass alle Staaten die mit einer Fremdwährung wie dem Euro als Legal Tender herumfuhrwerken bei jeder Bankenrettung ein Riesenproblem haben.

D. Bremser - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

D. Bremser — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:06:53 +0000

Ihre Glosse in Ehren, aber die kann nicht so stehen bleiben. Irgendetwas stimmt hier nicht. 1. Wenn Banken 5% ihrer Bilanzsumme als Sicherungsabgabe leisten sollen, warum werden in den nächsten 8 Jahren nur 0,6%=55 Mrd. in den Fond eingezahlt? Wo sind die restlichen 400 Mrd. Euro? Wie kann im Moment der Krise sichergestellt werden, dass Banken ihre Aktiva so schnell und vor allem zu 100% liquidieren können? 2008 fielen die Preise der C/D/MOs binnen kurzer Zeit auf 65% der Buchwerte. Was heißt das (theoretisch)? Im Krisenmoment müssen Banken dann Assets im Wert von 630 Mrd. EUR (=6,7% der Gesamtbilanz von 9,2 Bln.) für 400 Mrd. verhökern, nur um die Sicherheitsabgabe aufzubringen. Das ist ein mittleres Erdbeben. Der panikhafte Abzug von Einlagen großer Institutionen fehlt da noch. 2. Die Finanzkrise hat den Konzentrationsprozess intensiviert. Der Schock würde sich dann über weniger Netzwerkknoten ausbreiten und dann eine höhere Intensität haben. Die Bankenunion betrachtet einen Bankencrash offensichtlich als isoliertes Ereignis, bei dem viele Starke wenige Schwache retten. Aber was, wenn es genau alle schwach sind? 3. Ein Großteil der Sparguthaben sind bis zu einem bestimmten Schwellwert sowieso staatlich garantiert, müssten also zu den 87% hinzugezählt werden. 4. In der Bankenunion haben sich die Länder auch die Zwangskapitalisierung ihrer Banken vorbehalten, also ist der Steuerzahler wieder dabei. 5. Mit der Begrenzung der Haftung auf 8% des Stammkapitals und 5% der Sicherungsabgabe schafft die Bankenunion eine staatlich garantierte "Moral Hazard", einen Freibrief, um mit den 87% des Bilanzkapitals hohe Risiken einzugehen. 87% des Kapitals *können* staatlich garantiert den Wert Null annehmen! Das ist der Skandal, den Prof. Sinn hätte drastischer formulieren sollen. Bei der IKB und deutschen Landesbanken ist etwas ähnliches passiert. Bis aufs Messer stritten sie mit amerikanischen Händlern, dass sie nur CDO kaufen, die im Krisenfall wenigstens 3%, nicht 2%, des Buchwerts annehmen. Es waren dann 3%, tatsächlich. Früher war "you're big we bail" ein unausgesprochenes Gesetz. Jetzt ist es amtlich. Da ist es egal, ob dann 87%, 50% oder 40% der Bilanzsumme staatlich garantiert verzockt werden können. Lösung: "play with your own money" = hohe Eigenkapitalforderungen an Banken, also 30% bis 50% für mehr Eigenverantwortung. Eigenverantwortung, da stehen wir doch drauf. Empfehlung: des "Bankers Neue Kleider" von Admati und Hellweg (zu 5 - Lösung) oder "Boomerang" von Michael Lewis (zu 5 - IKB und Co.).

Alexander Dilger - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Alexander Dilger — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:05:35 +0000

Einverstanden, es ist extrem unwahrscheinlich bis unmöglich, dass alle Bankaktiva komplett verschwinden und die Passiva in voller Höhe aufgefangen werden müssen. Es ist allerdings auch völlig unplausibel, dass im Fall der Fälle der deutsche Haftungsanteil auf 28 % begrenzt bliebe. Wenn in den Krisenländern alle Banken insolvent würden, könnten diese Länder faktisch nichts mehr zu deren Rettung beitragen. Statt 28 % von 87 % der Bilanzsumme muss dann Deutschland vielleicht eher 87 % von 28 % retten, was auf dieselben 2 Billionen hinausliefe.

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut — Mon, 27 May 2013 22:05:38 +0000

What you say about the Central Bank has been more or less correct (regrettably so) for the Eurozone and the ECB (except for Cyprus). Not so in the US where, I understand, about 500 banks have been cut off funding from the Fed. Either leading to mergers with other banks or to resolution. I would agree that with banks like Deutsche, the ECB has no option but to keep funding but this does not apply to many other German and European banks which have so far been kept artifiicially alive at great ultimate cost to tax payers. The small country of Austria alone presently has 3 banks which so far have been artificially (and without any plausible economic reason) kept alive and when all is said and done, they will cost Austrian tax payers upwards of 10 BEUR. Put differently, 3 irrelevant Austrian banks have cost Austrian tax payers so far infinitely more than all periphery rescue packages taken together.

Stephan - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

Stephan — Mon, 27 May 2013 18:55:00 +0000

Klaus, many thanks for your comments! I would like to confine the debate to my original blog post, which is basically about how banks create deposits via loans under the current monetary arrangements. In your comments your raise very important other issues like the equity position of banks or non-performing assets on their balance sheet or spectacular leverage due to the existing regulatory regimes. My post was only intended to explain how endogenous money is created by commercial banks and that loans create (most) deposits. You are right, that as long as a deposit created via a loan stays with the bank who made the loan in the first place there are no problems whatsoever. Once the deposit is transferred to some other bank this "real" money comes into play you're talking about. Bank A needs central bank reserves to transfer the deposit to bank B. Are these reserves "real" money, whatever "real" in this context means? No. These reserves are a unit of account provided by the central bank to clear the myriad of transactions among commercial banks overnight. Where do commercial banks get these reserves? If their reserve account with the CB doesn't provide enough they normally go to the Interbanking market. Next they can make Repos or Open Market Operations with the CB. Or they show up at the discount window of the CB. Anyway the CB will provide the liquidity because it has no choice. By not doing so the CB will compromise the integrity of the payment system and the payment system will break down. That's the normal way of doing business for the CB and exceptions like Cyprus tell us more about the failure that is the Eurozone. You might want to read Alan R. Holmes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the issue: "In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. (PDF)

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut — Mon, 27 May 2013 06:18:27 +0000

Let me elaborate on the funding risk using the example of Deutsche Bank. According to Basel-2, Deutsche has very satisfactory equity ratios. In reality, Deutsche finances less than 3% of its assets with equity; the rest is financed with debt (including deposits. I agree that, from the depositor's standpoint, a deposit is not a loan but from the bank's standpoint as well as from the standpoint of bankruptcy laws, a deposit is a liability of a bank, i. e. debt. In case of bankruptcy, a depositor has no better claims against the assets than a bondholder). Thus, Deutsche is a bank which has total assets of 100, equity of 3 at best and debt of 97. Let total assets depreciate by 3% and Deutsche's equity is wiped out. When you finance 97% of your assets with debt, much of it short-term, you have a gigantic funding risk. Let lightening strike (i. e. a huge scandal or something like it) and funders will get nervous. By all standards, Deutsche's leverage is unbelievable high at around 40:1. A hedge fund with a leverage of yout 40:1 would be considered as 'highly leveraged'. How can Deutsche live with that? For one very simple reason: Deutsche operates with the implicit guarantee of the state. Everyone knows that the Republic (and other market participants) could never allow Deutsche to fail. But that doesn't change the fact that Deutsche still carries a huge funding risk. The huge error inherent in Basel-2 (and the future Basel-3) is that it is based on the socalled principle of risk-weighted assets to determine capital requirements. Socalled 'risk-free assets' are excluded from capital requirement. Deutsche has about 5 times as many 'risk-free assets' as it has risk-carrying assets. What are risk-free assets (which are probably still carried at nominal value on the books)? Well, think of sovereign bonds of the periphery. Is anyone still certain that they are indeed risk-free? Sub-prime paper, when rated AAA, was considered as very low risk and required very little capital. And so forth. Deutsche certainly manages its funding risk. Presumably, they have a fairly long average tenors of maturities. But there is always a huge amount of funding which is short-term and when lightening hits, that funding can disappear overnight.

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut — Sun, 26 May 2013 18:46:45 +0000

The author asked me on Twitter about 'real money' versus 'fiat money'. Normally, I never get involved with subjects like fiat money because they relate to monetary theory and I am definitely not a monetary theorist. I am a practitioner with extensive experiences in banking. Since the abolition of the gold standard, I would suspect that all money is fiat money in the sense that money has no intrinsic value. When following discussions, I note that 'fiat money' is used to describe money which is created out of thin air. When a Central Bank increases its credit limit for Bank A, it has created money out of thin air because Bank A can use that funding to make loans or purchase other financial assets which, in turn, create deposits, etc. Thus, it is an illusion to think that all loans in a banking system have, as a counterpart, deposits. A very large portion of those loans have, as a counterpart, money created out of thin air. And that's about all I will say about fiat money as it is understood in many quarters. When I talk about 'real money', I talk about liquidity. Suppose Bank A, a large bank, has a customer with deposits of 1 BEUR. One day, the customer instructs Bank A to transfer the 1 BEUR to Bank B. At that point, Bank A needs liquidity. It either finds a new 1 BEUR deposit from another customer, or can borrow 1 BEUR in the interbank market, or can issue a new 1 BEUR bond, or can get 1 BEUR funding from the Central Bank, or - in the extreme case - can raise new equity for 1 BEUR. Alternatively, it could call back 1 BEUR in loans and/or sell 1 BEUR worth of assets. Either way, the bank needs 'real money' to transfer out 'real money'. The funding risk is, in my opinion, the greatest short-term risk for a bank. The risk of non-performing loans can be 'managed' by a bank because the bank doesn't immediately have to make a write-down against equity (it can, for example, kick the can down the road by making new loans to a bad borrower, thus keeping the loans 'performing'). The funding risk hits immediately and brutally. When the insurance company AIG had maturities of CDS to the tune of several dozen BUSD coming up, there was no time to analyze the quality of its assets and to determine the amount of equity left after write-downs. Someone had to come up with 'real money' so that AIG could pay its bills on maturity. The same goes for Lehman, HypoRealEstate, etc.

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut — Sun, 26 May 2013 17:28:12 +0000

The author made a shallow statement on Twitter about my earlier comment with the intention of discrediting me and with the consequence of discrediting himself. To be sure: banks can indeed create loans out of thin air as long as the proceeds of those loans stay in deposit accounts at the same bank. To create a 100 loan to André as well as 100 deposits on the part of André requires two bookkeeping entries; no more. Just draw a T-account on a piece of paper and you will see how easy it is. It gets tricky when André instructs Bank A (which makes the loan) to transfer the proceeds of the loan to his account at bank B. Yes, Bank A 'takes care of its proper reserve position to clear the wire transfer between bank A and B'. But when a bank transfers liquidity to third parties (instead of only crediting/debiting its own accounts), a new element comes into play and that element the bank cannot create out of thin air - that is liquidity. I doubt that there was ever a bank failure where the failing bank, on the day prior to its failure, did not show a relatively sound balance sheet with performing loans and satisfactory equity levels (take Lehman as an example; or HypoReal Estate). Banks fail because they lose funding. The discovery of non-performing loans (or of a trading loss) may/will sooner or later lead to a funding problem but it starts with the funding problems and not the other way around. In summary: I don't disagree with the statement that 'banks can create loans out of thin air'. Banks can do that under certain circumstances which I described. However, that statement is incomplete and misleading. Incomplete because, short of new liquidity, a bank can only create loans is those loans stay in deposit accounts with the same bank. And misleading because it creates the impression that a bank can create its own liquidity.

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut — Sun, 26 May 2013 11:42:18 +0000

"Banks create loans out of thin air, expanding the asset and liability side of their balance sheets simultaneously, constrained by the amount of capital they hold and the capital requirements enforced by the regulatory regime". Not quite! There is also the funding requirement to be considered. Banks can only create loans out of thin air if their borrowers leave the proceeds of the loans on deposit with the bank and/or if the proceeds are transferred to other customer accounts at the same bank. When the proceeds of a 'loan created out of thin air' are to be transferred to another bank, the funding requirement hits with brutal force. That's when fiat money ceases to serve the purpose and real money (cash) is required. There is no way that a bank can create on its own the real money which it must transfer to another bank.

Stephan - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

Stephan — Sat, 25 May 2013 13:30:24 +0000

Fair enough. I'd like to note two things you must clearly separate. The first thing is the payment system. Once a loan is created by a commercial bank and the deposit starts to flow through the banking system under the jurisdiction of some central bank the central bank has no choice but to ensure that for each transfer the reserves are available for some price. Otherwise the integrity of the payment system is compromised and it will collapse. Which happened in Cyprus. Second in regard to the current account any surplus country must by definition export its surplus savings to the deficit country. That's why the current acccount and the capital account always add up to zero. In a normal currency area this is no problem whatsoever. Nobody in the US talks abour surplus and deficit states. In the fiasco that is the Eurozone this is indeed a problem. But to solve this problem via the current account would be tantamount to ask for a planned economy :~)

@KeineWunder - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@KeineWunder — Sat, 25 May 2013 12:43:31 +0000

So I try to answer in English too - excuse me for any mistakes in grammar and spelling… :). It's all about the dialectic of current account imbalances. Stephan, you are absolutely right when you talk about the creation of money. But in a fiat monetary system too every investment (or consumption via credit) must be later - after the loan/money is created - be matched by savings. After the bank created money out of thin air and the deposit created starts to circulate in the economy the bank must refinance itself until it gets the deposit back. In the case of a deficit country and surplus country in terms of current account think of two processes... The first one: A loan might be created in country S. Than the deposit is spend for imports from country G. This creates a saving in country G. If country G exports more goods and services than it imports (vice versa in country S ) G becomes a surplus country and S a deficit country. And country G can transfer the savings to country S. Now consider a second process. Country G is a deficit country. And G decides to become more competitive in therms of relative unit labor costs. Country G then needs less and less savings from abroad to refinance the loans created at home. At some point country G exports more goods and services than it imports because it became so competitive. Country G saves to much than it invests (and consumes via credit) and needs to transfer it's savings abroad. In reality - take Germany and Spain before the financial crises - this two processes interacted together. But to understand this interaction - let's call it the dialectic of current account imbalances - you have first to understand the two processes individually. If the deficit country Spain does not corrects it's loan creation which became excessive at some point and if the surplus country Germany does not corrects it's reduction in unit labor cost which became excessive at some point we get what we got: A spiraling current account imbalance which only could lead to this crises we are still in. So Stephan, you are focussing in you answer on the first process. And I wrote only about the second process - that is right (but be assured I never forgot about the fist process). It does not matter which process started in the first place. It is the interaction of the two processes or the dialectic of current account imbalances what matters.

Doktor D - Germany vs. Europe

Doktor D — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:58:16 +0000

Hier kommt eine sehr lesbare deutsche Übersetzung des Artikels: https://uhupardo.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/deutsch...

All Blog Comments

Ge&ccedil;ici D&ouml;vme - The € Trilemma

Ge&ccedil;ici D&ouml;vme - Proud to be Austrian ;-)

Ge&ccedil;ici D&ouml;vme - Tumblr Quote

Ge&ccedil;ici D&ouml;vme - I’m an Eco Hippie!

Ge&ccedil;ici D&ouml;vme - Porn & Disney Brainwashing

xxxTrading - Tumblr Video

Gelddruckmaschine - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Stephan Ewald - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Stephan Ewald - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

D. Bremser - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

Alexander Dilger - H.-W. Sinn: Berlin muss evakuiert werden!

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

Stephan - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@kleingut - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

Stephan - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

@KeineWunder - Are Deposits Loans to Bank?

Doktor D - Germany vs. Europe

Geçici Dövme - The € Trilemma

Geçici Dövme - Proud to be Austrian ;-)

Geçici Dövme - Tumblr Quote

Geçici Dövme - I’m an Eco Hippie!

Geçici Dövme - Porn & Disney Brainwashing