Real time equities settlement and clearing is a terrible idea. It sounds great. But it breaks a lot of good stuff. I'm surprised the CEO of a brokerage is advocating for it. (The article is a bit loose with the terms settlement and clearing. Again, surprising from the CEO of a company that almost got taken out by internal clearing failures.) If you only think about the American stock market from the perspective of a…
It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
411–420 of 445 posts
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have some bad news for you if you think profit sharing is going to replace free cash flow as a metric for company expansion. What happens if there's no profit? Have you been watching that Khadim Hussain Rizvi video where he tells the Pakistan Army to just repay the IMF loans' principal?
If there's no profit, the investors and the company owners have taken the risk and share it equally. What's the problem? I'm not aware of Pakistan's Army deal with the IMF. If they took on an interest bearing loan, it's their problem they got themselves into.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that's true, then it's fundamentally broken (assuming interest bearing loans of course). You will never have a sustainable economic system that is based on interest bearing loans Yes we should all switch the current economic system which has been the root cause of societal development. And we should switch to a fairy-tail system which you describe but miraculously does not and has not ever existed. One where peo…
> > Great empires were built without interest. > Like which? I think part of the problem is that the GP is conflating debt leverage and interest. My understanding is that there have been societies essentially without debt leverage, and no societies without loan yield. As far as interest, all non-altruistic loans have strictly positive yield. You can use contracts to shift payments around and nominally get rid of inte…
I had never heard of that contractum trinius thing! But it really doesn't seem any different. The borrow has to pay insurance premiums to the lender instead of interest premiums. Its only different in name. Additionally, the borrow has to pay for a separate contract that will allow them to profit off the debt! That's debt leverage for you!
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have some bad news for you if you think profit sharing is going to replace free cash flow as a metric for company expansion. What happens if there's no profit? Have you been watching that Khadim Hussain Rizvi video where he tells the Pakistan Army to just repay the IMF loans' principal?
If there's no profit, the investors and the company owners have taken the risk and share it equally. What's the problem? I'm not aware of Pakistan's Army deal with the IMF. If they took on an interest bearing loan, it's their problem they got themselves into.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#415Real time equities settlement and clearing is a terrible idea. It sounds great. But it breaks a lot of good stuff. I'm surprised the CEO of a brokerage is advocating for it. (The article is a bit loose with the terms settlement and clearing. Again, surprising from the CEO of a company that almost got taken out by internal clearing failures.) If you only think about the American stock market from the perspective of a…
The entire operating procedure of security exchanges is a series of terrible ideas that exists in it's current form because it allows the most wealthy participants to maintain advantage. Latency arbitrage shouldn't exist, as one example. There are no sound explanations of why it must be allowed, which leaves greed as the only plausible one. We dedicate a lot of talented people and expensive equipment to fleecing each…
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much long money is absolutely used by the company indirectly; they can use their stock like a currency to raise funds with debt, pay employees, acquire companies with stock, etc. Thats hopefully a virtuous cycle where people do more stuff that creates value. I don’t mean to make a moral argument, just question the need for short positions. If the company is truly bad their shares should deflate as demand deflates, no…
That debt, acquisition and paying of employees is fraud. You are just pushing the risk onto those other entities with poor price discovery.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are terrible reasons. Time to process the trade should be zero if systems are designed properly. If you need to borrow cash to trade you should do it first, etc. If some participants want to stay slow, bear more risk, require more capital, etc... let them. But the rest of the financial system shouldn't be held back because of them. Time for instantaneous settlement, across the board. This will never happen if w…
A San Francisco approach to a New York problem.
My observation is based on over a decade working on trading and settlement systems at multiple major international banks, exchanges.
The infra is creaking at the sides, it is too expensive to fix individually. We're talking hundreds of millions, even billions, at every institution, that they internally decide, repeatedly, that they cannot spend. Every so often a bunch of them try and work out how to build an industry utility for faster, better settlement but can never get past the politics. So it won't change in a big way, not from the current vantage point.
But the world is changing. More countries and industries getting into the financial system, changing retail demand, more complexity for small businesses working internationally, etc... so I don't think it ends with "it's too hard to properly fix this" so let's not.
I am pretty convinced at this point that the world will fix it, as I've described, but from very different starting points to major New York and London institutions, and they'll drag the rest of the industry kicking and screaming along with them at some point... once there's money to be there in size, the big banks and funds will follow.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#418The wild saga of GameStop’s stock adventures over the past week or so is a perfect illustration of the point. When users of the subreddit r/wallstreetbets decided to invest in the video game chain, the price of the stock skyrocketed to peaks well over $400 (six months ago it was closer to $4). The move resulted in jaw-dropping profits for some of the amateur traders—and a whole lot of anger from the Wall Street establishment. Hedge funds and other big-dollar investors who had shorted the stock have lost over $5 billion altogether from the episode. So what did our robust market system do? Simple: citing market volatility, Robinhood and other day-trading services just restricted transactions on GameStop and other WallStreetBets picks. The big funds, meanwhile, were free to continue trading as normal. Besides giving the big guys a chance to get their ducks in a row, the freeze caused the stock to crash on Thursday morning, costing many amateur investors a pretty penny.
It’s corrupt and immoral, and I’d be mad as hell if I’d been smart enough to get in on the GameStop craze. But it’s not the kind of thing that confident oligarchs do. It suggests the same fear that’s motivated so many decisions by people in power these past few months. Not to mention it may spark a backlash that will be well worth watching—and that may yet change our course in surprising ways.
I’m as wary of the Wall Street-Silicon Valley-Washington axis as anyone. But it’s hard to be too afraid of any regime that can be thrown into such a devastating panic by a horde of Redditors buying GameStop stock from laptops in their mothers’ basements—or, for that matter, by a virus, or an election, or the host of The Apprentice.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capitalism is predicated on the ability to loan out money. If that's true, then it's fundamentally broken (assuming interest bearing loans of course). You will never have a sustainable economic system that is based on interest bearing loans, we see it all the time with people waiting for the next crash to happen. > No debt means no credit for new businesses Not true. There are moral alternatives. If you want to sta…
> If that's true, then it's fundamentally broken (assuming interest bearing loans of course). You will never have a sustainable economic system that is based on interest bearing loans Yes we should all switch the current economic system which has been the root cause of societal development. And we should switch to a fairy-tail system which you describe but miraculously does not and has not ever existed. One where peo…
Strawman argument, and red herring. Just because we rely on something immoral that brought some value does not mean that there isn't a superior solution.
> switch to a fairy-tail system which you describe but miraculously does not and has not ever existed
Proper Islamic finance exists and has existed and has built empires.
> One where people will lend out money for free!
That's only in a capitalistic society where the only way to raise capital is lending. No they won't lend money for free (except if they want to be charitable). The solution is that money would be invested and risk shared equally among both parties, investor and investee, not lender and borrower, it's very different.
> This is hilarious because its just another form of lending which in fact does yield interes
It's very different. With an interest bearing loan, if the company doesn't work out, the lender will come after the borrower with the full support of the law, taking not only his principal, but the interest on top, destroying the latter. With an investment, if it doesn't work out, then the investor has lost his money and is not owed anything. It's risk sharing.
> and the average auto loan absolutely has a non-zero interest rate
I'm aware, but I wasn't talking about the average auto loan. You see it all the time when auto manufacturers offer 0% loans on certain models because they want to sell.
> Handing out low interest loans indiscriminately is irresponsible and the cause of massive economic damage throughout history.
Poison is still poison, regardless of the amount. The solution is not to give out more poison.
> The government is "taking out the loan" by issuing bonds and paying an interest rate to the bond buyers. So which side is unethical? The lender or the borrower?
Both are unethical. The Islamic perspective is that both the lender and borrower are equal in terms of sin (assuming the borrower is not doing it out of literally a life or death situation, which let's be frank, the vast majority of people are not in such a situation).
> Like which?
Islam prohibits interest, look up the Islamic empires all the way until the Ottoman empire.
> nobody is going to lend money without financial incentive. Why accept the risk?
That's the whole point. Without financial incentive, loans in Islam are purely an act of charity. If you want to invest your money, you invest it in ethical means that involve proper risk sharing. Interest bearing loans aren't that, there are countless other ways to make money. There were and are many rich Muslims that did not make their wealth using interest, but through investments.
Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that's true, then it's fundamentally broken (assuming interest bearing loans of course). You will never have a sustainable economic system that is based on interest bearing loans Yes we should all switch the current economic system which has been the root cause of societal development. And we should switch to a fairy-tail system which you describe but miraculously does not and has not ever existed. One where peo…
> > Great empires were built without interest. > Like which? I think part of the problem is that the GP is conflating debt leverage and interest. My understanding is that there have been societies essentially without debt leverage, and no societies without loan yield. As far as interest, all non-altruistic loans have strictly positive yield. You can use contracts to shift payments around and nominally get rid of inte…
I'm not :)
> The yield on these loans is always strictly positive, and an interest rate equivalent to that yield is easily calculated. You can shift payments around and structure things so that there's nominally no interest, but there's still yield on the loan.
In Islam, any loan that contractually requires benefit to the lender is prohibited, and that benefit does not have to be cash either, it could be a service or something intangible. Any attempt to dance around the issue (e.g. by stitching together intermediate contracts) does not change the fact that it is still interest under the covers, nominally or not. Islam cares about the actual substance, not what people call it on paper. This is already established in the texts which anyone can look at. As such, contractum trinius is prohibited in Islam.
Proper Islamic finance shares risk between the investor and investee, loans are strictly an act of charity since they cannot take interest. By looking at history, we know that it is possible to have societies that do not rely on interest, but on proper risk sharing. They don't teach that in the popular economic books though.