3 ms·

> > real loans and bonds business > You mean, like a Money Market fund like VMFXX? No, I mean like when a bank buys government bonds, company bonds, or loans

> > real loans and bonds business > You mean, like a Money Market fund like VMFXX? No, I mean like when a bank buys government bonds, company bonds, or loans money to customers and businesses. That's the kind of business that leads to bankruptcy if all your customers suddenly ask for their money back (which you have been lending behind their backs). > What Coinbase / Binance is doing is "Crappy" because their reporting guidelines are so much worse than what "the real banks" are doing. There's no one checking or double-checking these reserves. I'm not sure if that's the case, but if it is, then I agree with you. Crypto exchanges should be the subject of periodic financial audits by reputable firms and as far as I know, some of the more reputable ones are already moving in that direction out of their own free will (to assure customers that are getting worried by their less reputable competitors that are now going bankrupt), even going so far as publishing cryptographic Merkle proofs of crypto reserves (but traditional financial audits are also necessary). > Every single dollar (and even penny) is tracked in a money market fund. The _EXACT_ makeup of the loans is also tracked. The rules for how a "bank run" would be handled, are regulated and stated in advance. Everything has been planned out, discussed, debated, in Congress over-and-over again for the past 100 years as our laws have evolved. It doesn't matter, bank runs can still happen when you're in the crappy loans and bonds business. And when they do, nowadays not only banks get rewarded with government bailouts, but it's always the tax payer that ends up paying the bill, even though those tax payers are not responsible for the bank's risky and immoral (due to lack of customer consent) money managing policies. And the vast majority of those tax payers are not even customers of the bank!

dragontamer 4y ago
> No, I mean like when a bank buys government bonds, company bonds, or loans money to customers and businesses. Did you see the asset sheets on VMFXX? Its all government bonds, loans, and so forth. There's no "cash" just sitting there. Its all, completely composed of various kinds of loans (averaging 11-days in maturity). I've given you a "real bank" (Vanguard, an investment bank specifically but yes, a bank), that's conducting these "loans" / bonds that you're talking about. I've also brought up SWVXX, Schwab's competitor fund, is a "prime" MMF that consists _mostly_ of commecial paper (ie: loans to non-government entities), with higher levels of risk involved. -------- Based on how this discussion is going, perhaps I should focus on SWVXX instead. http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/SF/MMD/Fund.aspx?cu=808515605 http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/SF/MMD/Fund.aspx?cu=808515... There's even "less cash" here than in VMFXX. That's why I'm talking about these money-market funds. These are... the things you're trying to talk about, right? These banks / entities that are making a ton of loans / bonds to each other? I'm thinking of real-world entities and trying to match them up to what you're talking about. These things have names ya know. They're not just mysterious "banks" out there. People invest into SWVXX or VMFXX, or other such tickers / funds. > Weighted Average Maturity: 9 days You see that? It will take 9 days for most of those funds to mature and turn into cash, on the average for SWVXX today. This isn't "cash", its a pile of loans. Very short-term high-quality loans, but its a pile of loans. Is this not what you were trying to talk about? > That's the kind of business that leads to bankruptcy if all your customers suddenly ask for their money back (which you have been lending behind their backs). Yes. That's why there's strict liquidity tests, liquidity reserves, and publication requirements for entities such as SWVXX. The risk is real, and we need to keep an eye on it to make sure that Schwab and Vanguard aren't cheating the books. Those publication requirements simply do not exist for Binance or Coinbase. There's no asset sheet vs liabilities sheets. There's no reporting guidelines. There's nothing.
- wizeman 4y ago
  > I've given you a "real bank" (Vanguard, an investment bank specifically but yes, a bank), that's conducting these "loans" / bonds that you're talking about. Investment banks are not problematic because the customer is the one who decides how much and where their money is getting invested (therefore he knows how much he is risking, and how it is getting risked). This is unlike what happens with traditional banks, which is what I was referring to when talking about the crappy loans and bonds business (and lending the customer's funds behind their backs, even if the customer is aware of it and does not consent). > Those publication requirements simply do not exist for Binance or Coinbase. There's no asset sheet vs liabilities sheets. There's no reporting guidelines. There's nothing. If that's the case, then I agree, this should change. I would prefer if exchanges themselves would do this and customers would verify this, but even though I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't object to the government requiring reasonable, periodic financial audits of crypto exchanges by reputable financial audit firms because I am in favor of complete transparency[0] (be it regarding government or companies) and I recognize that too many bad apples are entering the crypto business and ruining its reputation (and customers of crypto exchanges are obviously not doing sufficient due diligence). [0] More transparency can greatly increase the benefits of market-based capitalism, because it works more efficiently (i.e. market participants make better decisions and get more value out of it) when the participants are acting with more information than when they are acting with less information.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > Investment banks are not problematic because the customer is the one who decides how much and where their money is getting invested (therefore he knows how much he is risking, and how it is getting risked). Do... you know what a MMF is? (money market fund) A MMF is a federally regulated investment product where 1-share equals $1. Investors invest into MMFs because they are "safe", and have a huge amount of federal regulations to almost-guarantee the 1-share == $1 price point. (but not "totally" guarantee). Small levels of risk are acceptable. Yes, they're offered by investment banks rather than traditional banks. But the "fundamental trust" that 1-share in VMFXX == $1 is extremely deep. That's why I keep bringing up this comparison. MMFs are allowed to loan out their money and partake in various investment schemes to generate a yield. HOWEVER, there's reporting requirements, there's investment requirements, there's rating requirements, there's transparency, etc. etc. All of this giant exercise with crytocoins trying to "make a stablecoin", where 1-stablecoin == $1 all the time is just a crazy scheme to recreate MMFs. That's my overall point and viewpoint.

dragontamer 4y ago

> No, I mean like when a bank buys government bonds, company bonds, or loans money to customers and businesses. Did you see the asset sheets on VMFXX? Its all government bonds, loans, and so forth. There's no "cash" just sitting there. Its all, completely composed of various kinds of loans (averaging 11-days in maturity). I've given you a "real bank" (Vanguard, an investment bank specifically but yes, a bank), that's conducting these "loans" / bonds that you're talking about. I've also brought up SWVXX, Schwab's competitor fund, is a "prime" MMF that consists _mostly_ of commecial paper (ie: loans to non-government entities), with higher levels of risk involved. -------- Based on how this discussion is going, perhaps I should focus on SWVXX instead. http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/SF/MMD/Fund.aspx?cu=808515605 http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/SF/MMD/Fund.aspx?cu=808515... There's even "less cash" here than in VMFXX. That's why I'm talking about these money-market funds. These are... the things you're trying to talk about, right? These banks / entities that are making a ton of loans / bonds to each other? I'm thinking of real-world entities and trying to match them up to what you're talking about. These things have names ya know. They're not just mysterious "banks" out there. People invest into SWVXX or VMFXX, or other such tickers / funds. > Weighted Average Maturity: 9 days You see that? It will take 9 days for most of those funds to mature and turn into cash, on the average for SWVXX today. This isn't "cash", its a pile of loans. Very short-term high-quality loans, but its a pile of loans. Is this not what you were trying to talk about? > That's the kind of business that leads to bankruptcy if all your customers suddenly ask for their money back (which you have been lending behind their backs). Yes. That's why there's strict liquidity tests, liquidity reserves, and publication requirements for entities such as SWVXX. The risk is real, and we need to keep an eye on it to make sure that Schwab and Vanguard aren't cheating the books. Those publication requirements simply do not exist for Binance or Coinbase. There's no asset sheet vs liabilities sheets. There's no reporting guidelines. There's nothing.

wizeman 4y ago
> I've given you a "real bank" (Vanguard, an investment bank specifically but yes, a bank), that's conducting these "loans" / bonds that you're talking about. Investment banks are not problematic because the customer is the one who decides how much and where their money is getting invested (therefore he knows how much he is risking, and how it is getting risked). This is unlike what happens with traditional banks, which is what I was referring to when talking about the crappy loans and bonds business (and lending the customer's funds behind their backs, even if the customer is aware of it and does not consent). > Those publication requirements simply do not exist for Binance or Coinbase. There's no asset sheet vs liabilities sheets. There's no reporting guidelines. There's nothing. If that's the case, then I agree, this should change. I would prefer if exchanges themselves would do this and customers would verify this, but even though I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't object to the government requiring reasonable, periodic financial audits of crypto exchanges by reputable financial audit firms because I am in favor of complete transparency[0] (be it regarding government or companies) and I recognize that too many bad apples are entering the crypto business and ruining its reputation (and customers of crypto exchanges are obviously not doing sufficient due diligence). [0] More transparency can greatly increase the benefits of market-based capitalism, because it works more efficiently (i.e. market participants make better decisions and get more value out of it) when the participants are acting with more information than when they are acting with less information.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Investment banks are not problematic because the customer is the one who decides how much and where their money is getting invested (therefore he knows how much he is risking, and how it is getting risked). Do... you know what a MMF is? (money market fund) A MMF is a federally regulated investment product where 1-share equals $1. Investors invest into MMFs because they are "safe", and have a huge amount of federal regulations to almost-guarantee the 1-share == $1 price point. (but not "totally" guarantee). Small levels of risk are acceptable. Yes, they're offered by investment banks rather than traditional banks. But the "fundamental trust" that 1-share in VMFXX == $1 is extremely deep. That's why I keep bringing up this comparison. MMFs are allowed to loan out their money and partake in various investment schemes to generate a yield. HOWEVER, there's reporting requirements, there's investment requirements, there's rating requirements, there's transparency, etc. etc. All of this giant exercise with crytocoins trying to "make a stablecoin", where 1-stablecoin == $1 all the time is just a crazy scheme to recreate MMFs. That's my overall point and viewpoint.