Liquidity: The Destructor of Economies and Liberty

Liquidity: The Destructor of Economies and Liberty
by Alex Merced

I always believed and still believe that innovations that make our day to day tasks simpler and easier is the key to raising the standard of life. Although, in making investment more convenient we have sown the seeds of our own destruction. The primary deterrent to anyone saving or investing capital has always been liability, the risk that the bank may go under, or that they won't be able to get out of their investment in a good time at a good value. In trying to accommodate to this fear we have focused on created several institutions to separate these liabilities from investment. Although, when separating liability from those who rightfully should own that liability you distort the economic calculation between risk and reward which will always yield unintended consequences.

Through different legal structures and mandatory insurance programs people became more and more willing to invest their capital, but they also became less concerned with what they were investing it, and with who. On top of this through trading markets and derivatives we made it possible for investors to get their return on their investments in short and shorter a period of time, creating more demand for investment.

Due to these "innovations" the time horizon for investors became less and less as "liquidity" increased. Is there any inherent problems with these innovations? Trading Markets and Derivative products in themselves were great innovations, yet the underlying separation between ownership of enterprise and liability caused by the underlying corporate structure caused a level of moral hazard that was heightened by the amount of liquidity provided to any investment. The check's a balances built into structures like a Limited Partnership were gone, and along with it much of the prudence and calculation that makes investment and it's benefits sustainable.

You couple this with the fraud of fractional reserve banking, and the leverage it allows, the end result you have is self-destructing economic whirlwind. As an economy is destroyed, liberty dissipates with it as people begin to look and blame each other for the lack of resources.

The answer to all this is a sound belief in ownership of property, and the liability that should come with it or else in a world without this basic principle, Liquidity will eventually be the catalyst of the economies destruction.

Does Wall Street Contribute to the Economy?

Does Wall Street Contribute to the Economy?
by Alex Merced

 One of the complaints I keep hearing about is that Wall Street doesn't contribute anything to the economy. Well, Wall Street, which is just a moniker for the "Finance" industry has done a great job of facilitating it's function in the economy. The function of the finance industry to facilitate financing (lending and investment), and the only way it does this is not only by creating and selling securities as the detractors would like to believe. Derrivatives, Prorietary Trading, and all the other fun politically unpopular stuff that Wall Street does helps create liquidity and demand. If these securities arn't liquid (which really just means has lots of demand), then it makes it hard to sell new securities for new companies cause the amount of investors becomes less. So yes these trading markets where firms and investors make money for themselves do serve this financing function, but does that mean everything is working as it should... no.

Risk and Reward help dictate how investors align their capital over time, and we have seen that investors, company executives, and everyone has seen their time horizons shrink demanding profits and returns on their investments quicker than ever before. When peoples time horizons shrink, more risk must be taken to achieve their goals in this time horizon, so one must study how culturally time horizons have shrank. Here are many factors I would consider:

1) The advent of C Corporations seperated those with Capital at Risk from those making the business decisions. Even in a Limited Partnership the General Partner who ran the business had to at least have %1 stake in the venture but now in a C Corporation the CEO is beholden to shareholders who are looking for short term gains since their securities can easily be sold at a moments notice. In a limited partnership, Limited Partners with Limited Liability can't just sell their shares on the fly so they have a stake in long term stability of the company and invest based on long term outlook instead of short term price fluctuations. C Corporations truly separated the liabilities of failure and liquidity from investors and executives and allowed them to operate in a short term gain framework.

2) Growing Government with low interest rate policies have put inflationary pressures on the returns needed by investors, plus the taxation that comes later on from these policies. So just to preserve the purchasing power they currently had investors had to make more gains faster, and of course Broker/Dealers are going to facilitate finding a way to do so.

So we need to return to free market values with realistic time horizons, but as long as we seperate liability from capital via legal institutions like the C Coporation (SIPC, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve don't help either), and tolerate growing government in distorting economic calculation to finance it's operations the Finance Industry won't have the capacity to return functioning in a sustainable manner, and no amount of regulation can make up for natural risk and reward.