Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

news.ycombinator.com

111–120 of 226 posts

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#111

No. Contagion is so far limited. Economy is still doing relatively well and inflation is still hot. BTFP is arguably QE-lite and has reversed some QT as far as I can tell. When we crash you won't need to ask if we're crashing. It will be obvious. China reopening trade has been softer than expected so far, but could still put pressure on commodities. Honestly the market is very confused right now. The bond market is s…

> When we crash you won't need to ask if we're crashing. It will be obvious.

This 100%.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#112
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing bubbles don't always burst (see: Australia)

Australia might be a reverse bubble. It is really the salaries shrinking (in real terms) rather than hot house prices increases.

My street going >60% up in price would disagree and I can't think of any other price that grew as fast in the last 2 years. Food and other things got slightly more expensive, but it doesn't seem comparable to the housing.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think hyperinflation and bank bailouts go together. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/03/ba...

The argument you linked is ignoring the fact that when you provide a bank with dollars (M1 bailout cash), it is lent out by the banks and creates a much bigger sum of M2 money (bonds, liquid assets) because of fractional reserves. Any bailout that is large enough, and isn't done in tandem with major deflationary events, would certainly impact inflation. I think 2008 was spectacularly smooth with respect to inflation/…

M1 reserves are not lent out by commercial banks - they are a liability of the central bank and an asset of the commercial banks or anyone else with access to the central bank's balance sheet. Banks only ever lend you their own liabilities. E.g. if you get a loan from HSBC, you borrow HSBC pounds because you have a deposit with HSBC.

When banks lend, they create a deposit (or credit an existing one) in the name of the customer (liability), and create a corresponding loan (asset) on their balance sheet. Banks don't _need_ reserves, like warehoused cash, to lend. They just need a capital buffer to absorb any credit losses on their loan portfolios.

The M2 money supply only increases if banks lend. In theory, they are more ready to lend when they have a better capital and liquidity position, which an injection of reserves is intended to achieve. But if no-one wants loans then M2 money supply doesn't increase as a result of a higher M1 money supply.

Also, "fractional reserve banking" is not a concept that relates to modern banking. Banks can lend as much as they like within reason. They are no different to any other business which can leverage their balance sheet by adding debt to increase return on equity. Loan creation is limited by:

1) Capital requirements - whereby loan creation is a function of how much capital they have, how risky their existing assets/loans are and how risky incremental loans are

2) Demand for loans from customers, which is a function of the macro environment e.g. interest rates

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#114

No, I remember 2007-2008 pretty clearly. That felt much more precarious. Right now it seems pretty clear that if your bank fails you're going to get your money. That's not to say that this isn't the start of some kind of a financial crisis. But it could be very different from 2008. In this case I think the risk is more towards high inflation - for example, if enough banks were to fail (hypothetically - I doubt this w…

I second that this is not like 2008. 2008 felt like the end of the world; this feels like more banks are failing than in a normal recession, but nothing like 2008 - at least so far.

> In this case I think the risk is more towards high inflation - for example, if enough banks were to fail (hypothetically - I doubt this will happen) and bunch of money essentially has to be printed up to make everyone whole, that's going to devalue money hence more inflation.

I disagree on this point. Why do you have to print money to make everybody whole? Because a bunch of money disappeared when the bank went down. You're printing a bunch of money to try to get to net zero. That's not inflationary. In the same way, the Fed's moves in 2008 to create $4 trillion were to replace the $4 trillion that vaporized in the crash, and were not inflationary. (And before anybody raises the point, no, inflation showing up a decade later does not mean that the Fed's actions in 2008 were inflationary.)

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#115
Feels worse to me in scope. Subjective, of course, but the combination of inflation and interest rates seems to have a broader impact. It was easily possible to get through 2008 mostly unscathed unless you were just about to retire, but everyone's already been taking a hit for some time now and it could get worse. I have less confidence in the current admin than in 2008 as well. I 100% expect lies and corruption and for working people to get screwed the hardest.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, how is (in the case of SVB and Select) making sure depositors don’t lose money while the bank itself is closed and assets sold off, holders of it’s debt (those who lent money to the bank), and those that owned the stock all lose their investments? I understand the 2008 bailouts were actually giving money to the banks that were/are deemed “too big to fail” and allowing them to more or less operate as…

Guarantee of everything tells the banks they can do whatever they want with everyone else’s money to possibly make more money with zero repercussions. If people could get bailed out of their credit card debt, how reckless would peoples spending be?

Zero repercussions? How about stockholders losing 100% of their investment, and management losing their jobs? Those sure look like repercussions to me...

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#117

is there a indirect causal relationship or link between the demise of svb and that swiss bank?

I think not. They may have both died from the same cause, but I don't think one caused the other.

But I'm just a random non-banker on the internet, so take this with some salt...

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#118
post #68
post #23

I think it's more like 2000 when there was a significant over-investment in tech, then Greenspan increased interest rates quickly and all the companies had to adapt to non-free money. I think the housing market will correct (crash) and tech jobs will be harder to come by for junior folks and people who aren't that great at it. Not a great time to job hop. It won't be horrible like 2008 but it won't be great. Should b…

> Should be over by the 2024 election. Even if the war spreads..?

The war is the wildcard. 9/11 made the dot bomb a whole lot worse for hiring since all the travel/entertainment companies went off a cliff for a few years.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think hyperinflation and bank bailouts go together. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/03/ba...

The argument you linked is ignoring the fact that when you provide a bank with dollars (M1 bailout cash), it is lent out by the banks and creates a much bigger sum of M2 money (bonds, liquid assets) because of fractional reserves. Any bailout that is large enough, and isn't done in tandem with major deflationary events, would certainly impact inflation. I think 2008 was spectacularly smooth with respect to inflation/…

The thing is that a crisis like this is inherently deflationary! Or at least has a strong negative impact on the business cycle.

> they allowed enough banks to fail.

There really were not a lot of "bank fails and depositors lose money" events. Ones I can think of were Kaupthing (for some reason a lot of UK local government were keeping their money in an Icelandic bank), and Cyprus (deemed too dodgy to bailout).

There was a lot of fiscal policy tightening ("austerity"), the other lever which people forget about.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?

#120
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the bonds are worth something, and the losses can narrow by a lot if they're allowed to hold to maturity, deposit interest rates rise slowly enough and if broad interest rates drop some time on the future. The risk that they can't narrow is indeed real and whether to backstop that is a source of contention here.

Unfortunately we are stuck living in the present where the bonds are worthless and not the future.

"slightly less valuable than expected" is not "worthless"! The hyperbole bubble is getting exhausting. People really want to talk a crisis into existence. Are they bored?
Post reply on HN