"Stunning Divergence": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

"Stunning Divergence": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System

zerohedge2021-04-19

There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

AliceQuah
·2021-04-19
No no...
回复
1
举报
Alvin1975
·2021-04-19
Like and comment pls
回复
1
举报
Alvin1975
·2021-04-19
Like and comment pls
回复
2
举报
收起
- Alvin1975:
  Oike and comment pls
  2021-04-19
  回复
  举报
PJoo
·2021-04-19
Too much cash on hand. No loan bad for real estate. Looks like inflation is inevitable.
回复
1
举报
收起
- KinKat:
  Deflation... that's what happened in Japan for at least a decade. Cos no one is spending, all saving
  2021-04-19
  回复
  举报
Silverlitz
·2021-04-19
If you put money into the hands of the people, ofcourse savings rate will increase.
回复
1
举报
erichosk
·2021-04-19
This just shows that there is excessive liquidity in the financial system and the fed's continual stimulus will only worsen it.
回复
3
举报
Rara08
·2021-04-19
Wow
回复
1
举报
GabrielWoon
·2021-04-19
Wow
回复
1
举报
收起
- Rara08:
  good
  2021-04-19
  回复
  举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1181769877","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System","media":"zerohedge","content":"<div>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":null,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-19 11:58 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"SPY","symbol_name":"标普500ETF","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","article_id":"1181769877","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":null,"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"zerohedge.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"translate_title":"“惊人的分歧”：最新银行数据显示，金融体系中的某些东西已经彻底破裂","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9},"content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":373936678,"gmtCreate":1618809464894,"gmtModify":1634290754712,"author":{"id":"3566963423285739","authorId":"3566963423285739","name":"AliceQuah","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab75773a0b4e08c10b11baaf6a467648","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3566963423285739","authorIdStr":"3566963423285739"},"htmlText":"No no...&nbsp;","listText":"No no...&nbsp;","text":"No no...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373936678","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373939496,"gmtCreate":1618809081915,"gmtModify":1634290757108,"author":{"id":"3573788625955643","authorId":"3573788625955643","name":"Alvin1975","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/beba0668af2d109b87221754e75935b3","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573788625955643","authorIdStr":"3573788625955643"},"htmlText":"Like and comment pls","listText":"Like and comment pls","text":"Like and comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373939496","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373939852,"gmtCreate":1618809046776,"gmtModify":1634290757466,"author":{"id":"3573788625955643","authorId":"3573788625955643","name":"Alvin1975","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/beba0668af2d109b87221754e75935b3","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573788625955643","authorIdStr":"3573788625955643"},"htmlText":"Like and comment pls","listText":"Like and comment pls","text":"Like and comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373939852","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4071574,"gmtCreate":1618809097180,"gmtModify":1635736321866,"authorId":3573788625955643,"author":{"id":3573788625955643,"idStr":"3573788625955643","authorId":3573788625955643,"name":"Alvin1975","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/beba0668af2d109b87221754e75935b3","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":373939852,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Oike and comment pls","text":"Oike and comment pls","html":"Oike and comment pls"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373079451,"gmtCreate":1618806978473,"gmtModify":1618808416177,"author":{"id":"3572863479502236","authorId":"3572863479502236","name":"PJoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c1df329f4341646fc633446858d34c31","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3572863479502236","authorIdStr":"3572863479502236"},"htmlText":"Too much cash on hand. No loan bad for real estate. Looks like inflation is inevitable.&nbsp;","listText":"Too much cash on hand. No loan bad for real estate. Looks like inflation is inevitable.&nbsp;","text":"Too much cash on hand. No loan bad for real estate. Looks like inflation is inevitable.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373079451","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4071602,"gmtCreate":1618809546705,"gmtModify":1635736319681,"authorId":3577917165320806,"author":{"id":3577917165320806,"idStr":"3577917165320806","authorId":3577917165320806,"name":"KinKat","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/05a5d7e664c9e14d1097e19f1846ce94","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":373079451,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Deflation... that's what happened in Japan for at least a decade. Cos no one is spending, all saving","text":"Deflation... that's what happened in Japan for at least a decade. Cos no one is spending, all saving","html":"Deflation... that's what happened in Japan for at least a decade. Cos no one is spending, all saving"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373047455,"gmtCreate":1618806803077,"gmtModify":1634290783928,"author":{"id":"3570362135363824","authorId":"3570362135363824","name":"Silverlitz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/abc7af211be1f2d501fd1885af02f33e","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3570362135363824","authorIdStr":"3570362135363824"},"htmlText":"If you put money into the hands of the people, ofcourse savings rate will increase.","listText":"If you put money into the hands of the people, ofcourse savings rate will increase.","text":"If you put money into the hands of the people, ofcourse savings rate will increase.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373047455","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373051460,"gmtCreate":1618805472950,"gmtModify":1634290795888,"author":{"id":"3575433293784452","authorId":"3575433293784452","name":"erichosk","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575433293784452","authorIdStr":"3575433293784452"},"htmlText":"This just shows that there is excessive liquidity in the financial system and the fed's continual stimulus will only worsen it.","listText":"This just shows that there is excessive liquidity in the financial system and the fed's continual stimulus will only worsen it.","text":"This just shows that there is excessive liquidity in the financial system and the fed's continual stimulus will only worsen it.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373051460","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373027207,"gmtCreate":1618805142509,"gmtModify":1634290798305,"author":{"id":"3579125484417577","authorId":"3579125484417577","name":"Rara08","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ee915a47f3c554f599dce721c2397b4d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579125484417577","authorIdStr":"3579125484417577"},"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373027207","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":373025284,"gmtCreate":1618805007348,"gmtModify":1634290799725,"author":{"id":"3579395105035655","authorId":"3579395105035655","name":"GabrielWoon","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a52c68e0b84d7f61c9d9ccf225bb2bb8","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579395105035655","authorIdStr":"3579395105035655"},"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/373025284","repostId":1181769877,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181769877","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618804724,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181769877?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-19 11:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181769877","media":"zerohedge","summary":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an ent","content":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"Stunning Divergence\": Latest Bank Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The Financial System<blockquote>“惊人的分歧”：最新的银行数据显示金融体系出现了彻底的崩溃</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-19 11:58\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThere was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.<blockquote>摩根大通最新的收益报告中有一个引人注目的披露：美国最大的银行——历史上以向更广泛的人群提供贷款而闻名的实体-报告称，第一季度其存款总额增长了同比增长24%和上涨6%从第四季度到2.278万亿美元，而该银行发放的贷款总额几乎与上一季度持平，为1.011万亿美元，下降4%从一年前开始。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cbd35c95e3ba4eaeaa213b19b6e6b5cc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"251\">In other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:<blockquote>换句话说，在其历史上第一次，摩根大通的存款比贷款多100%，反之亦然，贷存比在新冠疫情后暴跌后连续第三季度降至50%以下：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88af739d0bd73ca752ba72a295368d53\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"288\">An even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!<blockquote>美国银行的存款和贷款总额之间出现了更惊人的差异，该银行的存款同样创下了1.88万亿美元的历史新高，尽管该银行的贷款继续以惊人的去杠杆化（和通货紧缩的）的步伐，目前为9110亿美元，低于金融危机期间的水平：换句话说，美国银行已经有12年的贷款零增长！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a1febc12a0eabe3e22c432aa693e58d\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">It's not any better at either Citigroup...<blockquote>花旗集团的情况也好不到哪里去...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a99c5af10fb3b98af9f6769114dc873\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):<blockquote>...甚至是富国银行（虽然美联储限制了其可以发放的贷款数量，但显然对其可以收取的存款数量没有限制）：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/187ef83b0ba80c5d8df469d36aab390e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"290\">Summarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:<blockquote>总结上述数据，我们得到以下按四大银行划分的贷款总额：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cee3e3866c508adf5bddca1cab9d8109\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">And total deposits.<blockquote>和存款总额。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a14f5b3ebc875449fba6a946a15f7e4\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"275\">Finally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!<blockquote>最后，汇总四大银行的数据显示了一些惊人的情况：自全球金融危机以来，贷款没有增长，而存款总额却翻了一番！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/076ebbb5a6a365b1a770360d671cc3c2\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\">There are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.<blockquote>人们应该从不断崩溃的贷存比中得出两个主要含义。第一个更肤浅的问题是，这一比率是一个受到密切关注的指标，衡量银行的贷款额与其放贷能力相比。</blockquote> The second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?<blockquote>第二个，也是更深刻的含义，可以说是现代部分准备金银行学中最基本的问题：贷款和存款哪个先出现，换句话说，是私人商业银行创造了流通中的货币（通过首先放贷），还是中央银行负责货币创造？</blockquote> One thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.<blockquote>有一件事现在是无可争议的：现在美国银行系统的存款远远多于贷款。</blockquote> This is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.<blockquote>这是一个问题，因为大多数传统的货币主义者会争辩说，贷款永远是第一位的，只有这样银行才会接收存款。</blockquote> It gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).<blockquote>情况变得更糟：众所周知，我们生活在一个MMT世界，美联储和财政部已经合并，一方基本上将另一方必须出售的东西货币化。由于MMT的彩虹和独角兽世界表示，这种债务货币化没有什么可担心的，即使是受人尊敬的经济学家也被卷入了这种绝对的白痴行为，并敦促美国尽可能多地发行债务（拜登政府很乐意答应）。</blockquote> There is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.<blockquote>只有一个问题：截至目前，MMT的核心原则不再适用。提醒一下，根据MMT贷款创造存款而不是相反，这种社会主义疯狂理论进一步声称，准备金余额与此无关——它们是确保金融稳定的银行体系的一部分。不相信我们？观看MMT牧师之一Warrn Mosler的以下剪辑，他解释了如何“贷款创造存款。”只有...显然情况不再是这样了上面显示的经验数据清楚地表明，MMT的核心、锚定理论是错误的，它所有其他可笑的理论都是建立在这个基础上的，对于一个把自己的未来扔进了一个由这种疯狂理论所规定的世界的世界来说，这将会产生巨大的后果。</blockquote> The recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.<blockquote>最近的贷款和存款数据也意味着通过贷款创造存款的常规过程被彻底打破。</blockquote> Indeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:<blockquote>事实上，正如我们在2014年解释的那样，缺失的环节正是美联储。以下是我们当时所说的笑点，当时我们进行了类似的分析，观察到存款超过贷款的数量已经创历史新高：</blockquote> ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f936cf95378ced614eae0d4a4442defc\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"305\">What the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.<blockquote>...存贷款的记录错配是什么样子的？嗯，对于美国四大银行，摩根大通、富国银行、美国银行和花旗来说，情况如下。上图简单地显示了存款超过贷款系列的细分，如下图所示，该图表跟踪了商业银行贷款和存款的历史变化。显而易见的是，虽然贷款和存款在历史上的大部分时间里是齐头并进的，但从雷曼兄弟倒闭开始，贷款创造几乎不存在（贷款总额现在处于雷曼兄弟倒闭时的水平），而存款却上升到了10万亿美元左右。正是在这里，美联储的超额准备金消失了——两者之间的增量几乎正好是自雷曼危机以来美联储注入的准备金总量。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5579de247a3b78c403d7a2a488f8e612\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"331\">So what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!<blockquote>那么这一切意味着什么呢？简而言之，随着美联储现在缩减QE和存款形成放缓，银行将别无选择，只能发放贷款来抵消美联储外部资金注入的不足。也就是说，在银行“存款”已经尝到了“未来通胀”的甜头，并在股市中有所表现的同时，现在轮到匹配资产奋起直追了。这也意味着，虽然未来的“存款”增长（即闲置准备金）将放缓至涓涓细流，但银行将别无选择，只能向全国提供2.5万亿美元的贷款，或目前未偿贷款的三分之一，只是为了赶上美联储提供的领先优势！</blockquote> It is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.<blockquote>正是这种贷款创造将启动货币内部并流向经济，从而带来早该出现的增长。也正是这种贷款创造意味着银行将不再作为拥有过剩流动性的自营交易者进行投机，而是回到作为贷款人的根源。最重要的是，一旦银行开始大规模放贷，只有到那时，美联储过去5年所做的真正有害的通胀才会最终抬头.</blockquote> It will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!<blockquote>任何人都不会感到惊讶的是，更新我们在2014年首次展示的图表正确地解释了今天的现实，这是MMT完全无法做到的：如下图所示，存款超过贷款的过剩完全是由美联储注入的数万亿储备驱动的！</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ac78c6f58eddb6aa6185746284f1e76\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> The above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.<blockquote>上述也解释了为什么即使美联储向银行注入了数万亿的准备金，这些准备金通过转型最终成为银行资产负债表上的存款，M2货币流通速度已降至历史新低（并将很快降至部分准备金制度之下1.0 x的奇异性），作为贷款需求远不足以抵消美联储强制创造的存款，而最终却意外地结束了不是在经济而是在资本市场，导致广泛的通货紧缩被资产价格恶性通货膨胀所抵消。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f9b7c79f47c161eefece6a418d2beef\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote></blockquote> One final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"<blockquote>这一数据绝对至关重要的最后一个原因是：在一个日常主要争论是美国面临通货紧缩还是通胀的世界里，许多人已经确信我们正面临物价飙升，持续的贷款破坏是最可能发生的通货紧缩的事情。但不要相信我们的话——以下是摩根大通策略师Nick Panigirtzoglou最新“流量和流动性”报告的摘录，题为“银行贷款疲软带来的挑战”他在其中证实了上述所有观察结果，并写道“本周美国银行盈利报告的一个共同特征是贷款增长疲软。事实上，美联储H8发布的每周数据显示，美国银行贷款速度仍处于负值区域，自去年夏天以来持续疲软。”</blockquote> This persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"<blockquote>Panigirtzoglou写道，这种持续的疲软“紧随病毒危机爆发后，Q2 2020年银行贷款暂时飙升，让人想起雷曼危机后美国银行贷款的轨迹。在雷曼危机后，在企业和消费者利用银行信贷额度的推动下，美国银行贷款的速度在2011年年中之前一直保持在负值区间。虽然2011年后进入正值区域，美国银行放贷的速度远低于雷曼危机前的水平，这是长期停滞论的一个重要特征.\"</blockquote> The JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"<blockquote>摩根大通量化分析师随后承认，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演”还有待观察，尽管很可能的情况是“银行贷款的未来轨迹”对于确定长期通胀和流动性状况非常重要。”</blockquote> And the JPM punchline:<blockquote>摩根大通的笑点是：</blockquote> \"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\" Indeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.<blockquote>“后雷曼时期银行贷款长期疲软的重演将使人们对未来几年持续通胀冲动的想法产生怀疑。这也将拖累未来的货币供应和流动性创造，减少资产价格的关键驱动因素。”事实上，下图显示，货币创造已经从2020年上半年的火热步伐正常化。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8fe0c1e42cddbb22952eef0f86744516\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"388\">Looking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...<blockquote>展望未来，央行将在2022年或任何时候缩减规模...</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/813bcc5ee519bda92783202065c85a28\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"387\">.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.<blockquote>..摩根大通表示，除非银行贷款改善，避免后雷曼时期的长期疲软，否则未来几年货币创造可能会进一步放缓。</blockquote> JPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"<blockquote>摩根大通的不祥结论是，“雷曼兄弟时期银行贷款的长期疲软是否会在当前的后病毒周期中重演，对于决定长期通胀和流动性状况至关重要。到目前为止，银行贷款的轨迹与雷曼危机后时期的相似之处多于差异。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-divergence-latest-bank-data-reveals-something-terminally-broken-financial-system","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1181769877","content_text":"There was a remarkable disclosure in thelatest JPMorgan earnings report: the largest US bank -an entity that historically has best been known for making loans to the broader population- reported that in Q1 its total deposits rose by awhopping 24% Y/Yandup 6%from Q4, to $2.278 trillion, while the total amount of loans issued by the bank was virtually flat sequentially at $1.011 trillion, anddown4%from a year ago.\nIn other words, for the first time in its history,JPM had 100% more deposits than loans, or inversely, the ratio of loans to deposits dropped below 50% for the third quarter in a row after plunging in the aftermath of the covid pandemic:\nAn even more stunning divergence between total deposits and loans, emerges at Bank of America where deposits similarly hit a new all time high of $1.88 trillion, even as the bank's loans have continued to shrink at an alarming, deleveraging (anddeflationary) pace and are now at $911 billion,below their level during the great financial crisis:in other words, there has been 12 years with zero loan growth at Bank of America!\nIt's not any better at either Citigroup...\n... or even Wells Fargo (which while having been limited by the Fed in how much loans it can issue, apparently has had no limit on how many deposits it can collect):\nSummarizing the above data, we get the following picture breaking down total loans by Big-4 bank:\nAnd total deposits.\nFinally, aggregating the data across the big 4 banks shows something striking: there has been no loan growth since the global financial crisis, while total deposits have doubled!\nThere are two major implications one should draw from the collapsing loan-to-deposit ratio. The first, more superficial one is that this ratio is a closely watched metric that measures how much lending a bank is doing when compared to its capacity to lend.\nThe second, and far more profound implication, is arguably the most fundamental question in modern fractional reserve banking: what comes first, loans or deposits, in other words do private, commercial banks create the money in circulation (by first lending it out) or is the central bank responsible for money creation?\nOne thing that is now beyond debate:there are now far more deposits than there are loans in the US banking system.\nThis is a problem because most conventional monetarists will argue that loans always come first, and only then do banks receive deposits.\nIt gets worse: as everyone now knows, we live in an MMT world where the Fed and Treasury have merged and where one basically monetizes what the other has to sell. And since the rainbows and unicorns world of MMT says that there is nothing to worry about from such debt monetization, even respected economists have been swept into this absolute idiocy and are urging the US to issue as much debt as it possibly can (with the Biden administration glad to oblige).\nThere is just one problem: as of this moment, the core tenet of MMT is no longer applicable. As a reminder, according to MMTloans create deposits not the other way around,and this socialist crackpot theory further claims that Reserve balances have nothing to do with this – they are part of the banking system that ensure financial stability. Don't believe us? Watch the following clip from one of the priests of MMT, Warrn Mosler who explains how \"loans create deposits.\"Only... clearly that's no longer the case, and theempirical data shown above makes patently obvious that the core, anchor theory of MMT on which all its other laughable theories are built is false,with huge consequences for a world that has thrown its future into a world prescribed by said crackpot theory.\nThe recent loan and deposit data also means that the conventional process of deposit creation via loans is terminally broken.\nIndeed, that's precisely the case with the missing link being - drumroll - the Fed,as we explained all the way back, in 2014. Here is the punchline of what we said then, when we did a similar analysis observing what was already a record amount of excess deposits over loans:\n\n ... how does the record mismatch between deposits and loans look like? Well, for the Big 4 US banks, JPM, Wells, BofA and Citi it looks as follows.\n\nWhat the above chart simply shows is the breakdown in the Excess Deposit over Loan series, which is shown in the chart below, which tracks the historical change in commercial bank loans and deposits. What is immediately obvious is that while loans and deposits moved hand in hand for most of history, starting with the collapse of Lehman loan creation has been virtually non-existent (total loans are now at levels seen at the time of Lehman's collapse) while deposits have risen to just about $10 trillion.It is here that the Fed's excess reserves have gone - the delta between the two is almost precisely the total amount ofreserves injectedby the Fed since the Lehman crisis.\nSo what does all of this mean? In a nutshell, with the Fed now tapering QE and deposit formation slowing, banks will have no choice but to issue loans to offset the lack of outside money injection by the Fed. In other words, while bank \"deposits\" have already experienced the benefit of \"future inflation\", and have manifested it in the stock market, it is now the turn of the matching asset to catch up. Which also means that while \"deposit\" growth (i.e., parked reserves) in the future will slow to a trickle, banks will have no choice but to flood the country with $2.5 trillion in loans, or a third of the currently outstanding loans,just to catch up to the head start provided by the Fed!\nIt is this loan creation that will jump start inside money and the flow through to the economy, resulting in the long-overdue growth.It is also this loan creation that means banks will no longer speculate as prop traders with the excess liquidity but go back to their roots as lenders.Most importantly, once banks launch this wholesale lending effort, it is then and only then that the true pernicious inflation from what the Fed has done in the past 5 years will finally rear its ugly head.\nIt will also come as no surprise to anyone, that updating the chart we first showed in 2014 correctly explains today's reality, something which MMT is completely incapable of doing: as shown below the excess deposits over loans is entirely driven by the trillions in reserves pumped by the Fed!\n\nThe above also explains why even as the Fed has pumped trillions in reserves into banks, which by transformation have ended up as deposits on bank balance sheets,the velocity of M2 money has plunged to an all time low(and will soon drop below the fractional reserve systemsingularity of 1.0x), asloan demand is nowhere near enough to offset the Fed's forced deposit creation which incidentally ends upnot in the economy but in capital markets,resulting in broad deflation offset by asset price hyperinflation.\n\nOne final reason why this data is absolutely critical: in a world where the dominant daily argument is whether the US is facing deflation or inflation, and where many have become convinced that we are facing a surge in higher prices, continued loan destruction is about the most deflationary thing possible. But don't take our word for it - here is an excerpt from the latest \"Flows and Liquidity\" report from JPMorgan strategist Nick Panigirtzoglou titled \"The challenge from weak bank lending\" in which he confirms all of the above observations, and writes that \"a common feature of this week's US bank earnings reports has been the weakness in loan growth. Indeed, weekly data from the Fed's H8 release shows that the pace of US bank lending remains in negative territory, exhibiting persistent weakness since last summer\"\nThis persistent weakness, Panigirtzoglou writes, \"followed a temporary spike in bank lending during Q2 2020, immediately after the virus crisis erupted, and is reminiscent of the US bank lending trajectory after the Lehman crisis. After a temporary spike immediately after the Lehman crisis, driven by companies and consumers tapping bank credit lines, the pace of US bank lending had remained largely in negative territory up until the middle of 2011. Although it entered positive territory after 2011,the pace of US bank lending had stayed significantly below pre -Lehman crisis levels, an important feature of the secular stagnation thesis.\"\nThe JPM quant then concedes that it remains to be seen \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending would be repeated in the current post virus cycle\" although what is likely to be the case \"is that the future trajectory for bank lending would be important in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term.\"\nAnd the JPM punchline:\n\n\"A repeat of the post Lehman period protracted weakness in bank lending would cast doubt to the idea of a sustained inflation impulse over the coming years. It would also act as a drag for money supply and liquidity creation going forward, reducing a key driver of asset prices.\"\n\nIndeed, the next chart shows that money creation has been already normalizing from the torrid pace of the first half of 2020.\nLooking ahead, central bank tapering in 2022 - or whenever it arrives...\n.. would likely induce further slowing in money creation over the coming years according to JPM, unless bank lending improves avoiding the protracted weakness of the post Lehman period.\nJPMorgan's ominous concludes, \"whether the protracted post Lehman period weakness in bank lending is repeated in the current post virus cycle will be critical in determining both the inflation and liquidity picture over the longer term. So far the trajectory for bank lending shows more similarities than differences to the post Lehman crisis period.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4071040,"gmtCreate":1618805157220,"gmtModify":1635736371286,"authorId":3579125484417577,"author":{"id":3579125484417577,"idStr":"3579125484417577","authorId":3579125484417577,"name":"Rara08","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ee915a47f3c554f599dce721c2397b4d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":373025284,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"good","text":"good","html":"good"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":42,"commentSize":8,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"isCrawlerRequest":true}