A weekly thread to discuss financial matters - from personal all the way up to global.
Ground Rules
- Remember that we're all just Internet randos. Don't bet your life savings on a hot tip from this thread.
- Keep culture war in the culture war thread. Yes, global events may impact our personal finances, but that does not mean we have to incessantly harp on culture war aspects here. If you are going to discuss it, please stick to the practical impacts of it on an individual level.
- Be kind. Remember that everyone here comes from different circumstances. We all have different resources available and different risk tolerances.
- Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better is better. Celebrate people when they take a step up and work to move their finances in the right direction. Don't flame out because they haven't followed what you consider the optimal path. Everybody has to start somewhere.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
AI and government spending: teaming up to shiv the regular economy 🤝.
One bad thing about excessive government spending is that it increases the price of debt. Sure, I could loan you money for your new startup. But why do that when I can loan money to the government who will literally confiscate assets to pay me back?
The rapid AI buildout is having a similar effect. Hyperscalers like Amazon and Meta are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to build data centers. These are incredibly good credit risks with durable cash flows. Loan money to them and you will almost certainly get paid back.
So federal, state, and local governments are all increasing their borrowing at the same time that the largest corporations are doing the same. It's actually kind of surprising that the 30 year yield is only 5%.
Something has to break. There's just not enough liquidity in the system to finance everything that needs to be financed. And since AI productivity gains have thus far been elusive, we seem to be on a track to either austerity or inflation in the next couple years. Here's hoping it's inflation.
I can merely suggest that any cognitive dissonance you're experiencing with real world outcomes could also be solved a different way, with an acknowledgement that your understanding/intuitions were mistaken.
It sounds like your model is one where 'finance' is quantity-constrained with floating price. That could be a hypothetically-used system, and the gold-standard-era sort of tried to mimic that at one level of the money hierarchy. But our current system, from the top to the bottom, is one where finance is infinitely-elastic, floating quantity, based on set prices. If you're credit-worthy, you can always borrow money into existence at a rate that gives the bank a margin. If the government has their own currency and their own central bank, they choose their own interest rates to pay as a matter of policy, setting the base rate for everyone else. If anything breaks in the near-future, it would be due to a similar inept policy choice, rather than any fundamental economic gravitational pull. It would be like giving up on building a house because you ran out of inches.
I'm having a hard time reading this comment charitably. I think that you are arguing with an imagined person who thinks that there is a pile of money somewhere that we are all competing for. I get it. That's a common fallacy. But, no, I am not an idiot.
I'll try not to make the same mistake, but I think I want to correct some things implied or said by your post. You probably already understand this, but its worth pointing out that.
Yes its true that technically, the "government" can set its own base rate. But even modern monetary theorists understand that this rate is constrained by inflation. Otherwise we can just set the rate to zero, negative even, and all problems are solved.
Furthermore, banks cannot bring infinite money into existence. Yes, its true that when you get a loan from the bank money is created. But the banks cannot do that infinitely. They are highly constrained by their capital, deposits, and other complicated regulations.
Companies generally borrow money from the bond market not banks. This is the aspect I'd like to talk about here.
So let's take a real world example, Charter Communications. This is a highly-levered company which owns broadband assets. They are quite cheap, trading at roughly 3.5 times earnings. However, they are also highly indebted, with debt equalling about 4 times market cap.
Charter is quite easily able to service its debt with its massive cash flow. But this debt service is a huge part of their cost. Their profit would be roughly double if their debt disappeared. Here's the problem. When it comes time to refinance their debt, as they must do from time to time, they are COMPETING with Google and the US government for the same debt. And the US government and Google are much better risks. Charter is going to have to pay a HIGHER interest rate.
Until recently, Google didn't need to borrow money at all. And the US government's needs were much smaller. There are more debtors chasing the same amount of creditors, which is why the 30 year treasury yield as increased from 4.1% in two years ago to 5.2% today. That is massive.
Going back to Charter, they are currently paying about 5% on their loans. But their most recent issues have ranged from 6%-7.85%. If this keeps happening, it could sent Charter into a doom loop and bankruptcy. Loan cost goes up -> less cash flow -> more credit risk -> loan cost goes up -> bankruptcy.
And this is why Charter trades at a PE of 3.5 despite having difficult to replace assets and stable cash flows. The real economy is getting whacked because FAANG needs money for AI buildout, the government needs money for welfare, and they are both competing for bond buyers with old economy companies like Charter.
Like I said, just an offered suggestion. If you don't actually feel any cognitive dissonance with any outcomes or past predictions, then fully ignorable, my mistake. I can then instead just offer my own prediction for the next few years, of no austerity, no demand-pull inflation (could get cost-push from oil prices, certainly up in the air right now), and no loss of control of interest rates (indeed at some point the Fed will likely do their job and exercise more yield curve control instead of having the treasury attempting to do it alone).
Well the chosen interest rate isn't constrained. What's constrained by inflation is the stimulative effect of increased deficit spending, but note that raising the interest rate directly increases government deficit spending. So as an economic tool, whether you're moving the rate up or down with monetary policy, you're pressing both the gas & brake pedal at the same time, and just hoping to correctly predict which channels will have a stronger effect. Currently most central bankers still use a rough reaction function where they hope the net effect of raising rates cools the economy on balance, fighting inflation, and lowering rates stimulates the economy / causes inflation, but the evidence is just getting murkier for that hope (so they're thankfully getting away from anything close to a rigid taylor-rule style). There's no evidence that leaving the rate at 0% causes inflation, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary. So personally I do think they should set it to 0-1% and leave it alone. As for solving all problems, surely not, but maybe a lot of the problems you were bringing up.
They could, via the core accounting and economic logic, as well as having access to the reserve banking system with a permanently available lender of last resort. But indeed you noted the real restraint, government regulation, with current rules requiring those commercial bank members to stay profitable and thus well capitalized, or else face reprimand & closure. So sure, Charter can't walk up and get another $90B tomorrow. But if we accidentally just 'shiv' a super productive & profitable economy by having over-tight regulation that prevents lending to credit-worthy borrowers, that would be a failure of policy & imagination, not any kind of inevitable 'crowded out by tech' story.
Fair, I don't know enough about the appetite of retail & institutional investors for corporate bonds. I would have guessed it was effectively limitless at the right price, with the market being tens of trillions in size, where a company's finances & fundamentals would dwarf any effect from competition between issuers.
Either way, the federal government is definitely not playing in that same game as a competitor that could crowd anyone out. Their 'borrowing' consists of mopping up the exact reserves that they just injected into the system with the prior deficit spending. As for the chosen monetary policy risk-free rate being the starting point for all other interest rates, which get priced at some spread above it, I wouldn't find it very illuminating to use 'competition' terminology for that. That's just always how it works, regardless of the level of government spending. It's more aptly seen as a subsidy: the government chooses to give out money to those who have money, which obviously sets a base opportunity cost. As for long-term treasury price floating, that's still a choice of monetary policy to allow some market participation in setting the price, based on predictions about future inflation and rate-changes. I don't know how valuable they really find that information gathering from the market, and they could definitely choose to control the yield curve with any durations having any prices they want.
Looking into it briefly, it seems like a pretty interesting and extraordinary case study, rather than some joe schmoe typical avatar of the non-AI 'regular economy'. I'm paying them every month myself, but never knew about their prior bankruptcy & recent debt shenanigans with the mergers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link