Crypto’s 1907 Moment, Who Will Be Our JP Morgan?

CoinDesk發佈於 2022-11-11更新於 2022-11-11

文章摘要

Financial stability ultimately depends on the trustworthiness of people, not the reliability of technology.

When the Terra system and its UST algorithmic stablecoin collapsed in May, it triggered a meltdown in the crypto world that has been compared with the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. Some people called Terra/UST “Crypto’s Lehman.” Others think the crypto fund Three Arrows Capital, which collapsed in June and took a number of crypto lenders down with it, is more like Lehman and Terra/UST perhaps more akin to Bear Stearns.

But although it’s tempting to draw analogies with the Great Financial Crisis, there’s one crucial difference. In the Great Financial Crisis, the U.S. Federal Reserve intervened to keep markets functioning and bail out banks. But there’s no Federal Reserve for crypto. Although the Fed manages dollar liquidity, it does not take any account of conditions in crypto markets. There’s no U.S. government institution supporting crypto.

The real equivalent of this crypto meltdown is not the 2008 financial crisis, nor even the 1929 Wall Street crash. No, it’s a crisis that pre-dates the creation of the Fed – the “Panic” of 1907.

We tend to think of financial crises, whether in traditional finance or crypto, as network failures. But in the 1907 crisis the story is really about interconnected individuals. One man’s disastrous mistake caused systematic collapses of institutions connected to him by personal relationships. Similarly, underlying this year’s crypto meltdown is a story of broken friendships and betrayed trust.

The dramatis personae of the 1907 crisis were the brothers F. Augustus and Otto Heinze; the banker Charles W. Morse; Charles T. Barney, president of the Knickerbocker Trust Company; and the financier John Pierpont Morgan. The bank Morgan founded is today one of the largest in the world, and still bears his name: JPMorgan.

The crisis started with the dramatic collapse of a copper mining company, United Copper Company, which was majority-owned by the Heinze brothers. Otto Heinze believed speculators were borrowing United Copper’s stock in order to short it. So he tried to corner the market, as Charles Morse had done with New York City’s ice market. Otto Heinze bought large quantities of the stock to push up the price and squeeze the speculators out – what is known as a “short squeeze.” But Otto’s belief was mistaken. Traders were able to cover their positions. The short squeeze failed. The company collapsed, and the Heinzes, who had borrowed heavily to buy the stock, were financially ruined.

Failure of a copper company shouldn’t have triggered a financial crisis. But the Heinzes, and their close friend Morse, were extraordinarily well connected. Augustus Heinze owned a bank, the State Savings Bank in Butte, Montana, which was holding United Copper stocks as collateral against some of its lending. When United Copper collapsed, it became insolvent. This triggered a run on three banks connected to Morse.

All three banks were members of “clearinghouses,” consortiums of banks that collectively guaranteed to clear each other’s checks. So the deposits that ran from them simply ended up in other banks. The New York Clearing House Association eventually stopped the runs by forcing Morse and Heinze to resign all their banking interests. But by that time the crisis had widened to another group of financial institutions – the trust companies.

Sam Bankman-Fried is today’s Morgan, sole arbiter of which companies live and which are allowed to die.

Trust companies were unregulated deposit-taking and lending institutions – what we would now call “shadow banks.” They could invest customers’ funds in a wider range of assets than banks, including risky assets such as common equity in the proliferating startup enterprises of that time. And because they could take more risks, they could pay higher interest rates, out-competing banks for deposits. Not surprisingly, depositors looking for higher interest rates flocked to them, believing they were as safe as banks.

But trust companies did not have banks’ protection from illiquidity. They did not have to maintain even the 5% cash reserves required of banks at that time. They were not clearinghouse members, though some gained access to clearinghouse guarantees by forming alliances with banks. If a trust company got into trouble, no bank or trust company would bail it out. Like today’s crypto banks, it would simply collapse, taking its customers’ money with it.

Trust companies marketed themselves as robust institutions that were as safe as or safer than banks. But in reality they were highly leveraged and very fragile – just like the crypto banks that marketed themselves as better than banks and claimed banking guarantees to which they were not entitled.

The Knickerbocker Trust Company was among America’s largest trust companies. It occupied an imposing building in New York City, on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue at West 34th Street. Its president, Charles T. Barney, was a respectable financier. No one thought the Knickerbocker could fail.

But among Barney’s close connections was Charles Morse. Rumors spread that Barney had used Knickerbocker Trust funds to finance the Heinzes’ attempted “corner.” Depositors flocked to withdraw their money. The Knickerbocker paid out $8 million in three hours, wiping out its liquidity and forcing it to close its doors. Barney appealed to J.P. Morgan for assistance. But Morgan decided the bank was insolvent and he refused to bail it out – just as in the crypto meltdown, billionaire FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried decided crypto lender Celsius Network was insolvent and refused to bail it out after the Terra crash.

The Knickerbocker Trust’s failure triggered a widespread run on banks and trust companies. Banks stopped lending to each other and stock prices collapsed as brokers, unable to obtain liquidity, stopped trading. Morgan brought together a consortium of wealthy individuals to provide immediate liquidity to the market, and persuaded banks and trust companies to support each other.

But the crisis rolled on, becoming too much for even these very wealthy men to handle. So Morgan used the press and the clergy to send reassuring messages to the public. In the end it was spin doctoring, backed by a $100 million liquidity guarantee from the New York Clearing House, that ended the systemic runs – though not for long. A second phase of the crisis started in November 1907, this time triggered by failure of a brokerage that had unwisely accepted shares in a failing steel company as collateral. Again, Morgan was forced to intervene to rescue banks and trust companies.

The entire U.S. financial system had come to depend on one man. No wonder Congress decided something more robust was needed. The 1907 crisis led directly to the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system.

In 2022, as in 1907, one man brought down the system, and one man has shored it up. Do Kwon is crypto’s equivalent, not of Otto Heinze but of Charles Morse, the banker whose personal interconnectedness created such terrible fragility. Sam Bankman-Fried is today’s Morgan, sole arbiter of which companies live and which are allowed to die.

And the lesson for crypto from the 1907 crisis is that financial stability ultimately depends not on the reliability of technology, but on the trustworthiness of people.

你可能也喜歡

美联储决议与通胀数据公布后,比特币价格预计会发生什么?

知名加密货币分析师本杰明·考恩评估了美国最新通胀数据及其对比特币的潜在宏观经济影响。 美国最新经济数据显示,6月份个人消费支出物价指数环比下降0.1%,核心PCE同比涨幅也受限为0.1%,这些数据被市场积极看待。同时,美国GDP年化增长率1.5%以及较低的周度失业金申请人数(19.7万)显示出经济韧性。数据公布后,比特币价格保持了横向盘整的稳定走势,并未出现暴跌。 然而,考恩关注到宏观经济图景中不明显的方面,特别是美联储利率决议内部的分歧。尽管美联储维持当前利率不变,但联邦公开市场委员会中有三位成员投票支持加息,这表明货币政策收紧可能尚未结束。考恩援引美国两年期国债收益率与美联储贴现率之间的关系指出,当债券收益率超过利率时,货币政策对市场的限制作用会减弱。他补充说,如果劳动力市场再次开始增长,通胀压力可能卷土重来,并断言今年下半年或9月份存在美联储意外加息的可能性。 分析师表示,在市场普遍预期降息的时期出现潜在的加息,将对投资者构成打击,并可能加速资金从风险资产中撤离。在分享对比特币价格周期的预期时,考恩认为市场底部可能尚未到来,根据历史数据,最有可能的情况是比特币将在今年第四季度触及真正的底部。 *本文不构成投资建议。

cryptonews.ru5 分鐘前

美联储决议与通胀数据公布后,比特币价格预计会发生什么?

cryptonews.ru5 分鐘前

美联储最密切关注的个人消费支出价格指数(PCE)数据表现向好:分析人士给出积极评论

美国联邦储备委员会密切关注的个人消费支出物价指数数据出现积极信号,分析师给出正面评论。数据显示,美国6月个人消费支出物价指数有限下降,但通胀率仍高于美联储2%的目标。尽管存在高利率和能源价格上涨的压力,第二季度消费支出强劲反弹,表明美国经济保持韧性。 具体来看,美国商务部数据显示,第二季度消费支出同比增长3.2%,远高于第一季度的0.5%。核心PCE通胀率从6月的3.4%微降至3.3%。虽然下降被视为积极信号,但物价涨幅仍显著高于目标水平,给货币政策前景带来不确定性。 美联储主席沃什表示,政策决策将不仅依据PCE数据,还会参考更广泛的一系列通胀指标,并重申美国经济具有韧性。经济学家指出,能源价格重新飙升是下半年美国经济面临的主要风险之一,可能迫使美联储进一步收紧政策。高通胀也使消费者对价格更为敏感。 花旗集团经济学家认为,沃什关注PCE以外的通胀指标,可能降低了近期加息的可能性。他们指出,核心CPI(2.6%)比核心PCE更接近2%的目标。更广泛的指标可能在未来数月显示通胀未出现令人担忧的加速。目前市场预计9月加息概率为59%,但花旗经济学家认为此预期可能过高,近期或不实施新的加息。

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

美联储最密切关注的个人消费支出价格指数(PCE)数据表现向好:分析人士给出积极评论

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片