HOT TOPICS:   Gold   |   Unitary Plan  |    Mortgage rates

The comment stream

Reader poll

How many new houses will the Government-Auckland Council accord produce in Auckland over the next three years?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Opinion: Olly Newland says that commercial property could be a better option for many investors. Your view?

Posted in Property

By Olly Newland

Olly NewlandI have always been surprised by how some people react when I suggest they should investigate commercial property investment because it provides a very a good alternative to residential investment.

It’s "too complicated", they say. Or "too hard to understand" is another common response, as well as fear of vacancies with a consequent loss of income.

Yes, I agree, residential property is the more 'liquid' of the two forms of investment, but successful residential investment is, in my view, the hardest subject to master by a country mile.

We all know the advantages of residential property and they are persuasive, that has to be said, but let me give you some of the disadvantages - just for the sake of the argument.

The main problem with residential is that it’s 'political' in every sense of the word. From one day to the next there is a steady drum beat, criticising those who own or invest in residential property.

The media run one story after another on overcrowding, shortage of rentals, rising rents, unfair profits, and lately pressure  to introduce a capital gains tax or reduce so-called ‘tax rorts’.

It’s no wonder that there is a growing rental crisis, and increasing homelessness, all aided and abetted by the recent tax disadvantages which have, as expected, had the exact opposite effect from what was intended.

See: Sleeping rough is street legal

All this was predicted by me for over a year or more. And let me quietly tell you something else in the strictest confidence mind you. Draw close, I don’t want to shout.
As the rental crisis grows, especially with the approach of winter, be prepared for more headlines and yet more controls on residential rents. You have been warned.

On the subject  of Capital Gains Tax, I have yet to see a skerrick of evidence showing what a capital gains tax would achieve. Yes, it does exist in other countries but such taxes did absolutely nothing to stop runaway property booms (and busts) in the USA, Europe or Australia … just to name a few.

In the news at present time, we learn about the troubles in Spain and Greece where the foreclosures (mortgagee sales in our parlance) are staggering and getting worse by the minute.
see: The ghost towns of Spain: Images that are desolate symbols of collapsed property market

Spain already has a capital gains tax. To call it 'complex' is a gross understatement

Or how about Greece, where matters are just as bad?  They too have a capital gains tax, but it will likely only create tax credits for years to come. See Greece’s house price falls continue, amidst economic woes

The call for a Capital Gains Tax in this country are supposedly to encourage investors to put their spare funds into 'more productive investments'. But again, I am still waiting to hear what, exactly, these more productive assets are.

Another problem with residential property as a landlord is the bothersome control over the market by bureaucracy and the well meaning but cumbersome Tenancy Tribunal.

I would be the first to agree that tenants need some form of protection, and we probably DO need some form of third party control by way of a Tribunal, but the system should allow tenants and landlords to agree to opt out of the system if both parties so choose.

Why should expensive homes, for instance, be subject to government control in regard to bonds or rents? Parties to high end properties hardly need a government watch-dog to breathe down their necks.

And what law applies in the case where a property is rented out fully-furnished as many are? The current bond limitation is totally inadequate to cover damage in this instance.

There’s no doubt that, if done correctly, and with due diligence and forethought, residential investment can be very profitable mainly because it’s (supposedly) understandable, easy to finance with the aid of mortgages, and is happily used by banks as security when advancing other loans … especially for further residential investments or business use.

But there are great advantages for those who make the effort to understand commercial property.

The upsides

Commercial property has become far more popular in recent years and rightly so for the following reasons:

(a) There are no controls from any outside body so long as parties act reasonably

(b) You can charge whatever rent and whatever terms you and your tenant mutually agree upon

(c) You can ask for any bond you like — again as may be mutually agreed upon

(d) You can evict bad tenants rapidly under the terms of the lease with little or no outside interference

(e) The only “control” that exists is the lease that is agreed between you and the tenant (and that can be varied as when it suits)

(f) Depreciation allowances are often higher than on residential especially for fittings and fixtures.

See NZ Management: Substantial property depreciation allowances remain

Even more importantly, depending on the lease, your commercial tenant pays for all the out-goings as well, such as rates, water and insurance. Commonly these are spelt out in the lease (i.e. a net lease)  but if not then these costs are built into the rent (i.e. a gross lease).

Either way, the tenant pays … which makes your returns that much better.

A few years ago the traditional return on the average commercial property (whether retail, office or industrial) was around 10%. For example a property valued at $500,000 would pay a net rental of $50,000 per annum after payment of all outgoings.

Over the past few years this return has fallen dramatically, to as low as 5% plus. I suspect it will go even lower for prime properties in the future.

In other words, lower and lower yields means that investors are paying more and more to buy a certain income stream.

In the example above, where the net income is $50,000, investors could now well be prepared to pay almost twice as much as before especially if the property was good. e.g. at a 5.5% yield the same property would be worth over $900,000.

Not a bad return if you you play your cards right  - and a darn sight easier than slogging away with a bunch of slum properties filled with druggies and misfits.

The trick is to find commercial property which can genuinely be “improved” so that is goes up in value … no matter what inflation or deflation are doing.

A little study and perseverance can find these deals and often such value increases can be achieved in short order with little more than a stroke of a pen.

My team and I recently assisted a client into buying a run-down block of shops. With a little expense, and our constant advice we pushed the value up from $1.4 million (being the purchase price) to an estimated value if $2.0 million … and all done within 6 months from date of purchase and while collecting the rent at the same time .

And just to prove the point that it wasn’t just wishful thinking on our part, this particular block was  on- sold at auction for$1.95M which was just a whisker under its estimated value.

Set out below are actual examples of the latest commercial auction results in the Auckland region. You can see for yourself what the prices achieved and do the maths .  Make sure you carefully read the introduction by the impartial observer so that you cannot accuse me of any exaggeration:

Recent commercial sales
Bob Dey report - published 30 March 2012

It was a feeding frenzy – as has happened a few times when a batch of retail units has been taken to the market, the crowd at Bayleys’ Total Property auction on Wednesday was big, the bidding on the first 4 offerings was frenetic and the yields were under 6%.

After those first 4 sales of units in the Merton East convenience centre in St Johns, the yields were softer – but 2 were under 7%. 2 unusual factors at this auction, though, were that the auction room stayed crowded well after the first flurry of activity – and the yields were still firm.

Yields on the first 4 Merton Rd units were 5.33% for a Columbus Coffee outlet, 5.6% for a sushi shop, 5.75% for an Indian & kebab shop and 5.7% for a stir fry takeaway outlet.

The centre is at the roundabout intersection of 3 busy roads – Felton Mathew Avenue, Merton & Morrin Rds in St Johns, leading down to Auckland University’s Tamaki campus & the Auckland Netball courts, then to Glen Innes.

The centre, developed by Argyle Estates Ltd (Graeme Edwards & Nigel Powell) opened late last year, has 8 ground-floor shops ranging from 71-297m² and 309m² of office space above. It’s on a 5436m² site which also has 76 parking spaces plus another standalone building incorporating a Carl Jr fast-food chain drive-through.

Progressive Enterprises Ltd has plans for a 4200m² Countdown supermarket opposite this site, to be operating next year.

Auction details below contain the 16 sales and 2 of the properties passed in Another dozen properties were also offered at the auction:

St Johns
Unit 1, 208m², St Johns Butchery, returning $59,950/year from 10-year lease to established operator of Greenwood Corner Butchery, rent reviews 2-yearly to market, sold for $861,000 at 6.96% yield

Unit 2, 207m², Liquor Spot, a new store concept for New Zealand’s largest liquor chain, Liquor Centre; returning $59,125/year from 10-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to higher of CPI or market, sold for $855,000 at 6.92% yield

Unit 3, 297m², Green Fresh Fruit & Vege store, returning $82,500/year from 10-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to higher of CPI or market, sold for $910,000 at 9.07% yield

Unit 4, 95m², Spice Traders (Bombay Blue) Indian & kebab food takeaway, returning $37,412 from 8-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to market,? sold for $651,000 at 5.75% yield

Unit 5, 76m², Global Stir Takeaway, returning $33,150/year from 8-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to market, sold for $585,000 at a 5.7% yield?

Unit 6, 71m², Bruce Lee Sushi outlet, returning $28,476/year from 8-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to market, sold for $513,000 at 5.6% yield

Unit 7, 112m², Columbus Cafe with outdoor seating area, returning $51,714/year from 10-year lease, annual rent reviews of 4% compounded, sold for $970,000 at 5.33% yield

Unit 8,?271m², Jetts 24-Hour Gym, returning $73,253/year from 8-year lease, rent reviews 2-yearly to market or CPI plus 2%, whichever is higher but capped at 6%, sold for $990,000 at 7.4% yield

Unit 9, 309m² office unit leased to steel frame designer Framecad NZ Ltd, returning $51,031/year from 5-year lease, 2-yearly rent reviews to CPI plus 2%, sold for $655,000 at a 7.8% yield

Glendowie, 20 Mt Taylor Drive, 200m² building on 1786m² site occupied by a Montessori pre-school for a decade on net rent of $83,200/year, reviewed annually either to CPI or 2.5%, whichever is the greater; the tenant renewed for 10 years & 5 months from November 2011; the site has long-term development potential with residential 6A zoning allowing subdivision into 4 house sites; sold for $1.372 million at a 6.3% yield

Newmarket, 220-222 Broadway, 301m² building on a 212m² freehold site? with 2 footwear tenants returning net $260,650/year; the vendor acquired the lessor’s interest from L&Y Holdings in 2003 for $1.8 million, then undertook an extensive restrengthening to bring the 1920s building up to modern seismic requirements;?sold for $4.1 million at a 6.36% yield

Herne Bay, 272 Jervois Rd, unit 1, fully renovated Lollipops childcare centre returning $160,000/year from 12-year lease, passed in at $2.275 million

Onehunga, 245 Church St, mortgagee sale by bank of 3-level 528m² building on 423m² site, ground-floor retail & warehouse, first-floor office and a 3-bedroom apartment with decks on the top, passed in at $475,000

Ponsonby, 1 Jervois Rd, unit 10, 130m² shop with 3 secure parking spaces, occupied by The Children’s Bookshop since 1998, returning $71,168/year from 6-year lease from February 2010, sold for $1.08 million at a 6.6% yield – $189,000 more than the vendor paid for it 2 years ago

Wellsford, 215 Rodney St, 180m² standalone commercial building on 453m² site leased to Subway at net $42,000/year on lease renewed for 6 years from September 2012, sold for $621,000 at a 6.8% yield

Albany, 31 Schnapper Rock Rd, purpose-built childcare centre on 1851m²?site, returning net $160,160/year from a Bear Park Childcare franchise; the tenant has been there since 2002 and has already exercised the second of 3?6-year rights of renewal, from September 2013; sold for $1.957 million at an 8.2% yield

Northcross, 176-178 Carlisle Rd, 48m² unit in an 11-unit neighbourhood retail convenience?centre on the corner of East Coast Rd, returning $39,824/year from a 10-year lease?to The Lovers Corner Kebab shop from 2006, with annual rent reviews to CPI plus 2% and 18-year telecommunications tower lease to Vodafone returning?$11,000/year, with? 2-yearly rent reviews to CPI,?sold for $725,000 at a 7% yield?

Glen Eden, 6 Wilson Rd, 425m² building modernised for a Lollipops childcare facility and licensed for 50 children on a 1224m² site in town centre, returning $111,283/year from an 8-year lease from February 2008 with 2-yearly rent reviews and 2 5-year rights of renewal, sold for $1.395 million at an 8% yield?

New Lynn, 3025 Great North Rd, 647m² commercial site near Lynnmall in town centre, returning net $36,996/year from a 3-year lease to a car dealer from December 2009, sold for $672,000 at a 5.5% yield

(NOTE: I have lightly edited the report to save space. For the full report go to Bob Dey Property Report

These sales are further compelling evidence that prices have moved strongly upwards as compared with the more traditional values of a few years ago . They are a harbinger of things to come.

To me and others who follow the commercial market these results are truly astounding but interestingly, so far there hasn’t been a peep about this in the media.

If residential sales results showed similar rises in values in today’s financial climate the headlines would be screaming and the calls would be coming in thick and fast to introduce new taxes and other ‘disincentives’ (i.e. punishments) for investors who dare make such gains.

Interestingly, the prices obtained are not that far away from those achieved for average “Mum Dad and the three kids” residential properties in the Auckland region (slum-boxes excepted) but as the subject is commercial, it has no sex appeal and it’s therefore not a headline grabber.

‘Commercial Property Prices Rise Dramatically’ will never be found on page 3 of any newspaper. That’s fine for us in the business, thank you very much. We prefer it that way, actually.

There are more such deals out there just waiting to be found as many commercial property owners are still asleep at the wheel.

Before long investors will wake up to what is happening - so now is the time to start learning all about the subject.

If you are tired of the stress that residential tenants can give - not to mention poor returns, mounting repairs or vexatious complaints - then the commercial property market is just the right place for you.

You could become a part of this very fascinating multi-billion dollar investment niche - an area where big profits can be quietly made providing you know what you are looking for and obtain a good working knowledge in conjunction with impartial advice.

---------------------------

Olly Newland
April 2012 www.ollynewland.co.nz  Used with permission.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

309 Comments

That all sounds good, but I

That all sounds good, but I would be carefull getting involved with one managed by a company and you rely on a good income from it, as these companies can drop the dividend payments any time like and very often do so.
I notice that they never drop their management fees at the same time.  Funny that ?

If you have a look at Olly's

If you have a look at Olly's history he has lossed millions of his dollars, investor dollars and bank money in 1987 in his Book called losed property.
My advice is to that all classess of investment carry a risk so one must look at the risk factor and see if one can sleep at night...;)
House are bought and sold on............... Emotion
Investment properties are sold on.........  Income and returns
if you have a $5m dollarbuilding  and the tenant goes into receivership you may lose your investment building where as a house is easier to relet if the tenant walks or goes bust.
My advice is there is good money in doing small deals where there is low risk and easier to get out fast if you have to.
It also depends on the cycle of the market.
Internett will soon if not already effect retail investment going forward.
Olly only talks of the Up side never the down side and what happened to him when the shit hit his fan in 1987 !

I have got two small

I have got two small commercial properties worth $300k eack (one retail shop and other 10 self storage units).
Self storage units are great as risk is spread over 10 units, next to no maintianence and built of colour steel etc.
Purchase price was $190,000 2 years ago with currently weeky rent over $400 and are due to increase rent to $45 per week as new tenants come on (and we are still a third cheaper than likes of Kennards etc) . Fully tenanted with calls weekly from people looking for units.
Retail shop has had same business in it for over 20 years and had it for 8 years and return is now 20% based of purchase price.
Portfolio is fully self servicing on P & I loans.
Would never consider residential investment property  now.
 
 

Thanks for sharing your

Thanks for sharing your experience.  My old too a commercial convert.  He mainly invests in retail commercials with established businesses.

Neat story Money Man and good

Neat story Money Man and good on you.
I still consider and buy residential properties, mainly because I find there are so many that have good 'adding value' possibilities.
All the best to you.

Public quoted like GMT

Public quoted like GMT YES
Direct Industrial YES
Direct Retail NO
Syndicated  NO definitely.
 

Oh yeah! From what I hear

Oh yeah! From what I hear business is really booming in NZ of late! Good one Olly..phhh

NZ Heads You couldnt have

NZ Heads
You couldnt have read Olly's book very well. His banks went under and lost his money for him just like the finance companies of today .
But to his credit he seems to have made it all back again. .
And in this article he is only discussing commercial property as an option  to be considered.
He leaves no doubt that commercial is not for everyone.

IMO Commercial was great, not

IMO Commercial was great, not so great because of the retail environment nowadays. I know a guy that sold a while back for around 9 mil, had the building a few years. Because of the retail environment now you'd pick it up for around 6-7. Blame the internet.

NZtext book – how to make

NZtext book – how to make millions.
 
Correct – Big Daddy- the advantages of commercial buildings - they can be easy, but profitable converted into different businesses, depending on the economic situation of our society: 30 units Backpacker’s, 50 units “Kiwi Student Squeeze”, 80 units “Foreign Students Squeeze” 100 units “Immigrant Squeeze” - two or three new Finance Companies – two Loan Shark Companies or for JK- our PM - a new casino.
 
-  What about the new Shanghai Pengxin office ?

Retail has changed thanks to

Retail has changed thanks to the internet but the only changes are to the types of businesses.
Such items as books and printing, basic foodstuffs, or stock items that do not need personal inspection are suffering from the changes.
But it is not really possible to get hairdos, eat out, go to a pub, try on clothes or buy good cuts of meat without physically going to a "shop".
That's why retail areas are still packed with "shoppers" who want something more than just a screen to look at.

Retail will never die, only the types of services will change.
And that applies to industrial as well .
 
 
 

Concur

Concur

Just because it is commercial

Just because it is commercial property doesn't change the fact that property investment is criminal like bahaviour and definitely antisocial in intent.
 
Most home owners are unaware that the money the bank has lent them is created from nothing, not matched by equivalent deposits. They then get charged interest on this free money, but the catch is new money has to be printed each year to cover the interest payments. Prices in aggregate have to rise each year no matter what. The scumbag property investor knows this, and also knows the bank will lend them this free, leveraged money and let them leverage it again to buy property. More free money and more interest to be printed, so who is on the losing end of this exchange? Anyone that doesn't own a house, which includes every young person entering the work force.
 
Of course the astute person will see that less and less young people are entering the work force year on year, so eventually there won't be enough suckers to keep the ponzi scheme going.

Scarfie, on that basis

Scarfie, on that basis breathing and indeed just living must be criminal!
 
You are clearly a loon, only interested in denigrating anyone who actually gets off their backside.
 
Your arguments are also rubbish - retail banks don't just create money out of thin air (even if central banks do!). 
 
Based on your arguments anyone who uses money must be criminal!
 
The funny thing is that anyone who doesn't engage in what you believe is our "criminal" money system is actually lawfully a criminal (as to not use money you would need to barter for everything in which case you could/would never pay tax as the law requires!).

Read my comments below about

Read my comments below about fallacious arguments, you are good at those.
 
There is no problem with money. The trouble is that what you call money isn't by definition, completely undermining your pathetic attempts to excuse your lecherous behaviour.
 
So is leeching of others acceptable because you "get off your backside" to do it. I guess you could condone all sorts of behaviour under that scheme.

scarfie: It is not fallacious

scarfie: It is not fallacious to testify the fallacies of your ramblings!!!
 
Are you so discombobulated by criticism that you resort to blurting the same invective?  Criminals, Lecherous, Leeches!!  (Fortunately I find the demonstration of such intellectual deficiency (the confusion of lecherous and leeching) mildly amusing!!  I can wholeheartedly state that I have never engaged in lecherous behaviour with a house!!!  Other readers - with a knowledge of the English language (or at least a dictionary) could please avoid the rather coarse but hillarious homonym intimated by the previous statement!!).

Clearly scarfie and others

Clearly scarfie and others who suffer from such a severe phobia of homes have after such an extended period of the aforementioned discombobulation (on this rare occasion) succumbed to being left speechless!!!!!!!!

Your arguments are also

Your arguments are also rubbish - retail banks don't just create money out of thin air
Actually they do. It is a much better description of what they do, than to say that they lend out deposit holders money. Scarfies argument is clearly falatious, but not because of this.
 
 

NtNZ:  Creating money is more

NtNZ:  Creating money is more than slightly different to earning or making money.
 
Grow a tree and sell it for a profit - you haven't created money in the sense scarfie implied!
 
Scarfie implied retail banks just make up numbers in an account and loan it out - that is rubbish!

Scarfie implied retail banks

Scarfie implied retail banks just make up numbers in an account and loan it out.
Would it alarm you if that is what they did? Because thats what they do. If you imagine the bank has a pool of depositor money, when they make a loan they
1) create a loan ledger and
2) create a deposit ledger for the borrower of the same amount.
Voila, the borrower has access to the pool of depositor money up to the amount of their  deposit ledger.
http://neweconomics.org/publications/where-does-money-come-from
This material is not a conspiracy theory in any way, the book discussed here distils many many official bank of england documents down to be easily understood. Its actually very surprising to me that you would be posting here and not know this fact.
 

NtNZ   Only a dumb nut would

NtNZ
 
Only a dumb nut would confuse what scarfie and you suggest and what banks actually do do!!
 
Beside the book you reference being written by a bunch of left wingers who want a 21 hour work week, you must realise that bank credit is not just money out of thin air as scarfie and you believe!!
 
It's more than a stretch to say that a bank creates money because they increase a credit limit!  If I open an account with a $10k overdraft limit and zero deposited the ledger balance is still zero despite having an available balance of $10k, money is not simply being created by the bank (which they can then earn interest on as your cerebrally challenged friend scarfie suggests).  If I withdraw $5000 (to buy a house!!) the ledger balance is now $5000 overdrawn and the available balance is $5000 - the net position of my account on the bank's balance sheet is now an asset of $5000 (the $5000 loan I withdrew), which has to be balanced by either another customer deposit (NOT the $5000 available balance), a money market deposit or out of the bank's other assets.
 
There is no mysterious creation of money simply because an available balance exists in a customer account!!
 
Retail bank's certainly don't earn money from money they've created!  They earn money charging a margin on advances higher than they pay for deposits and of course from fees - much like a supermarket makes money charging a margin on it's grocery items!
 
(There is a proviso: that if you are foolish enough to have both deposits in and loans from a bank at the same time then the bank is probably earning a margin on your money that it shouldn't - but that's still not the money out of thin air scarfie talks about (it's just really a fee for the customer's convenience or perhaps stupidity!).

Pretty underwhelming answer

Pretty underwhelming answer Chris since you seem to be throwing the 'dumb' label about. Are you really that stupid that you believe that? I guess so eh. I will go toe to toe with you in an IQ test any day buddy. I can even give you a rough idea of your odds.
 
Might I suggest a trip over to the RBNZ website and do a search under the term 'Fiat' and 'Fractional Reserve Banking'. Documents are available there that will confirm we use both systems for out money, but which you seem to be denying. 
 
 

Just keeping it simple for

Just keeping it simple for you scarfie.
 
Enough banter, but clearly you don't understand basic concepts.  Keeping it simple fiat currency is basically just money which isn't backed by a gold standard and fractional reserve banking is just banks operating as they have for 300 plus years ie taking deposits and lending money - if there wasn't fractional reserve banking a bank would just be a giant vault stuffed with notes!!!
 
Clearly you should move back under your rock!
 
From you confusion of a lecher and a leech, your continued nonsense about criminality and corrupt money systems, I wholeheartedly expect that your intellect is at best diminutive.
 
Prove me wrong, you are clearly relatively young, I could ask your GPA /GPE but that's very subjective depending on the institution, so in your last standardised year of education in NZ (ie 7th form) what did you acheive??
 
I can happily tell you that my lowest grade in NZUEBS was 91% with an average of 92.8% across five subjects.  My university GPA was 10.8 (out of a maximum 11 for an A+).
 
But achievement in life has only little to do academic ability, and certainly wasting time arguing with loons right here suggests to many (including myself) that I am indeed a fool, however your incessant and beligerent comments unfortunately draw my attention, and I wrongly feel compelled to defend logic and reason.
 
It is no consequence to me whether you share my viewpoint, so it baffles me why I have spent any time at all replying to your comments, especially as most readers already find yours and pdk's view bordering lunacy.
 
I think enough has been said.

All talk. It was a challenge

All talk. It was a challenge not an excuse for you to mouth off again. Your school grades & university grade are meaningless, as the guilford model of intelligence would show. At best it might show you are good in a narrow defined field. It is also telling in that it shows is a complete lack of intuition, but I know from past exchanges that you are incapable of comprehending that.
 
And yet another fallacy when you claim to speak for everyone. The last time there was a vote on my logic DavidB failed miserably at 17:4. So contrarily it is actually you that is part of a small self serving group that only want to know about where their next capital gain might be.
 
You make an even bigger dick of yourself when you assume I am young.

All truth.  Not talk.   I

All truth.  Not talk.
 
I assumed that your name (a colloquialism for an Otago uni student?) together with your hatred of property owners, your childish name-calling and your poor literacy were all on account of your youth!
 
Clearly there is no logic to your comment that property investors are criminals and the whole line of argument you put forward is insulting to both myself, the author of this article Olly Newland and to the providers of this website.
 
If you have such a superior intellect, evidence us of it.  What is your academic background?  What is your business background?
 
I have stated my academic background today and given my business background here many times before. 
 
It seems your inability to provide such details belies some inadequacy?

Not that academia or business

Not that academia or business is really correlated to intelligence and in fact quite the opposite in the latter, but I topped my first year in Architecture School. I also mentioned last week that my daughter is in her third year of a chemical engineering degree. Won't find any more demanding than those two.

So you are old.   But why are

So you are old.
 
But why are you telling us this?  No disrespect but your children's intelligence isn't exactly an excuse for calling property investors scumbag criminals.
 
Are you an architect?  Which school?  Are you practising? 
 
When I studied at Victoria in the 90s class rankings weren't given out.  (I did 1st Pro Arch (200 level), and coincidently I direct entered into Honours 200 level Chemistry in my first year at Canty Uni (which was overlapped with the Chem Eng class) and got A+s - so I guess rather bizarrely I have as good or better grades in both those areas you mention as demanding! Unless of course you completed your BArch?
 
But none of that is relevant to the argument that property investing is criminal or that money is corrupt, which is all just loony nonsense.
 
Anyway I have far better things to do.
 
 

Going back to the actual

Going back to the actual point of contention, Chris described a scenario where he goes to the bank, access $5000 and then spends it. Since when he did this nobody else goes without $5000 until he pays the bank back, palpably the money has come from thin air. Additionally of course Chris has acquired a liability and is expected to work his ass of chasing down $5000 + interest and returning it to the bank. So there is no dispute, banks create money by accounting entry.
The funny thing is the positive money group are simply advocating that the banking system be reformed to function exactly as Chris thinks the banking system already functions. Unfortunately left wing ideas give Chris a rash, he comes across all scratchy and irritable when people talk about being nice to each other in some way, so the views of a group like positive money are toxic to him. You have to feel sorry for the guy.
I don't think I have ever met anybody on this site who was less qualified on an intelligence test than myself. Obviously that speaks highly of the quality of posters at interest, its really exclusive Bernard only accepts comments from super smart individuals.

That vote had nothing to do

That vote had nothing to do with your logic, scarfie. All it showed was how many people on this site lack a basic grasp of sound scientific literacy, and that includes first and foremost you. 

Actually it was comprehension

Actually it was comprehension and it was clear you failed miserably. Do you want me to cut and paste your comments again David? I have saved them for reference because your stupidity was spectacular.

Scarfie, Its pretty simple to

Scarfie,
Its pretty simple to me and I don't think I am a dumb arse.
Answer a simple question then:
Why are Banks also so focused on getting in deposits if they can simply create money out of thin air to lend out??????

Where exactly does either

Where exactly does either myself or Scarfie claim that banks don't need deposits? The only point of contention is the method of creating credit, and Chris has not even challenged this, his own example shows what Scarfie said is correct.
 

"Let's see how the fractional

"Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I 'lend out' $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the 'fraction' in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones.
No where here is there any comment in regards for the need for any deposits, infact you even say that your capital doesnt even need to be by way of cash.  For this simplist bank startup you need $10k in cash in the bank to lend it out. If I rock up to your start up bank and ask for the first $10k how are you going to pay me? You need either cash in the bank or have a credit line (with RBNZ if in NZ). Goes back to Accounting 101 that Assets in any business are funded via either Sharefunders Funds or Debt (or combination of both)
If I use $10k to buy a car and the owner deposits the $10k into your Bank, yes, you can relend most of it and charge interest to the second borrower but you are also paying interest to the depositor.
You would give your cause more creditabity if you took a more balanced view and acknowledge that when credit is created via loan the Bank does not pocket all the interest paid as profit, it collects a margin only as it has to pay depositors for the funds to lend out.
 
 

Obviously Rothbards example

Obviously Rothbards example is a minimal simplification. No bank has one customer in practise, but your supposed refutation is a poor one. You are simply quoting a situation where too many deposit holders want access to their funds at once. Thats called a bank run, they do happen occasionally, so clearly this example is consistent with fact.
The other simplification being that you do need a certain amount of money available before you can credibly start a bank, I think the RBNZ documents I quoted below say 15 million before the reserve bank will allow you to be called a bank.
I doubt this very obvious fact was lost on you in the first place. Its not in any way like, there are two kinds of potential banks from the regulations, but only one exists because the other kind can't breach startup conditions and come into existance. Banks do, as is well known, hold more deposit liabilities than they have assets.
Are you really disputing Murray N. Rothbards statements? I did quote him verbatim there.
 

Gee.  Perhaps you should read

Gee.  Perhaps you should read that Dumb Nut Steve Keen.  For example.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2012/04/16/inet-presentation-minskian...
A litte bit snipped...
.....Schumpeter’s entirely theoretical arguments on both the nature of banking and the ultimate source of finance for investment received subsequent support from empirical researchers. Basil Moore (Moore 1979; Minsky, Nell et al. 1991) overturned the “money multiplier” model of money creation with empirical research which showed that bank lending preceded reserve creation (see also Holmes 1969; Carpenter and Demiralp 2010). .....
 
and from www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/12/03/my-hardtalk-interview-transcribed/
... a little bit snipped
.... The banks can create money by extending loans. The government creates money by running a deficit. Now back in the early 60s the ratio of government created money to the overall money supply was 15%. It’s fallen so far that we’ve got an entirely debt-based system....
 
Not everyone agrees with Keen. Krugman and Keen having been having a bit of a disagreement about other matters
. However, on the topic of money creation..... He is quoting empirical research by neo-whatsit economists in the first link...
 

Don't get me

Don't get me started!!
 
Steve Keen isn't exactly an oracle.
 
But honestly if simply lending money "created" money then repaying debt (which is what I am doing at the moment) destroys money.
 
The fact is that simple people here are getting confused as to what money "creation" actually is.
 
Scarfie and others suggestion that retail banks simply make up money (and therefore make huge profits from their ability to do this) is not only nonsense but is entirely deluded.  The corollary that borrowers are therefore criminals is just bizarre and displays the stupidity of certain posters.

Just pointing out that Keen

Just pointing out that Keen is pointing to empirical evidence that suggests that money is created when a loan is created... That is, out of thin air...
And that while it used to be a combination of Governments & banks that created money  (in the 1960's).  It now appears to be almost exclusively created by Banks.
and btw... You were already started....
Not sure where the bit about borrowers therefore being criminals came from.

The point is that most people

The point is that most people belief loans are matched by deposits, so money is in fact fraudulent in the criminal description of the term. Well taking a loan out anyway, as that is the creation point.

Oh dear.   That's enough

Oh dear.
 
That's enough garbage for a lifetime.

Read scarfie's comment about

Read scarfie's comment about criminal scumbag property investors at the head of this comment stream and you will see why I am irate.

Well. Some property investors

Well.
Some property investors are criminal scumbags.  Others have good intentions.
Probably would have been better leaving the comment go through to the keeper if it upset you that much. 
I would be tempted to start looking at The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying ( if I had the time ), as I think there are some philosophical insights to be found in that book that would help illuminate some of the moral compass issues that crop up when observing some of the behaviours associated with Property investment.
Now..... Time to do something else
 

Some Catholic Priests are

Some Catholic Priests are criminal scumbags ...... pick any occupation at random , and you'll find a minority who are criminal scumbags .......
 
..... why do you think that they only exist within the property investing industry ?

But at least religion isn't

But at least religion isn't founded on a criminal action like property investment, actually wait......

..... study up on the history

..... study up on the history of the Catholic Church ..... then apologise to all other property investors ...... ha !

Well ... Chris_J ... if you

Well ... Chris_J ... if you HAD followed scarfie's comments from the outset you would have been aware that he is referring to investors who use debt to leverage themselves into property ... he is referring to the debt and not the property ... and his main target has been the debt peddler BigDaddy ... it's interesting that he has pressed your hot button, because you appear to be a fully cashed up property investor who doesn't use debt.

But honestly if simply

But honestly if simply lending money "created" money then repaying debt (which is what I am doing at the moment) destroys money.
In fact this is exactly what Steve Keen, myself and positive money all do claim. The financial crisis is caused by a fall in aggregate private debt. But of course this doesn't contradict the fact that commercial banks created the money in the first place, and earned interest on it over the course of any loan being repaid.
 

One person's debt is another

One person's debt is another person's credit ...... it is a simple marketplace concept .......
 
..... it does seem hard to conceive of , in NZ , because we've had several generations accustomed to picking someone else's wallet , via governmental love of egalitarinism ......
 
But there really is no " free " money ....... property investors take a risk by leveraging up their balance sheets ...... as do the banks who fund them ....... if both parties to the transaction create a profit for themselves , then well & good , they took the risks .......

The risk is very small Gummy,

The risk is very small Gummy, which is one of my main points. An ever expanding money supply means house prices are almost guaranteed to rise over time. The small risk is being over leveraged as you say, but the reality is you only get caught in this manner if negative yielding and the prices drop excessively for more than a year, a rare combination so only the most greedy would get caught. The money obtained is still free, regardless if minute percentage get caught out & go bust
 
However I think the game is up in general, as the market has reached a peak in terms of finding new people unencumbered by debt to keep the ponzi going. NZ is just last in the chain.

In world wide terms I think

In world wide terms I think you are right.
In NZ specific terms, maybe not.
NZ is so small that a small fraction of a percentage of wealthy foreigners can keep the market propped up
National made it very easy for wealthy foreigners to get residency/citizenship.
If NZ is viewed as a safe haven.... Which it appears to be at the moment.

As per usual GBH way

As per usual GBH way off........
a) the very economists who thought this are the main ones that said we were doing fine and here we are in a worse mess than the 1930s. Steve Keen and Minsky point out why this simply phalacy of debtor balances creditor doesnt apply in the real world.......
b) Risks are not really being taken, the banks know full well if they are allowed to collapse no one eats and our society collapses, hence they hold a gun to their own heads and dare pollies to fix things as they play the roulette table...hence the bank carries no risk, its show horned off onto the un-interested 3rd parties, the voters.
So when Scarfie says they are criminal, yep I'd hangGoldman Sach's board for instance and I wouldnt lose sleep....
PIs etc produce no good as such when they leverage....what they are doing is participating in a ponzi scheme.....a decent CGT will stop that game.....
regards
 
 

.... if interferring

.... if interferring governments hadn't bailed out the bankrupt banks , the more prudent banks would've taken up their market share ....... which is the way the marketplace is meant to work .....
 
..... both shareholder & bondholders of those knucklehead banks , ought to have been wiped out , and the directors sacked ( no bonuses , no severance payments ...... out ! ) ...
 
We do live in such a namby-pamby liliy-livered world where no one is " allowed " to fail . Nanny State is standing there to fix it all , no matter how greedy & culpable you've been !

I don't know why you bother

I don't know why you bother with these confused, perverse, and none too bright flat-earth losers, Chris, I really don't. To me the scary and concerning thing is that NZ has so many of them. No wonder this country has failed to perform economically, to prosper and to stay in the top half of the OECD when you have so many queer/ wrong thinking numbskulls like this in it.
To be honest with you I wish retail banks would just create money out of thin air. No one would need to default on their loans then would they, because the banks would just create or destroy money at whim to suit the needs of their customers and themselves? 

........ fair do's , DB

........ fair do's , DB ...... there's many of us confused , perverse & none too bright flat-earth losers in Australia now ..
 
.. .. and we blend in very well with the natural born Aussies ......
 
One does wonder where this " banks create money of of thin air " malarky springs from ..... Iain Parker has alot to answer for ......
 
.. .. not much chance of the team debating the crux of Olly's article , is there ....... Commercial Property vs Residential ... as an investment ..... anyone ? ( CJ & BadDiggy excepted ! )

Well I agree with Olly. I

Well I agree with Olly. I have commercial property interests, and very good investments they have turned out to be too, and for the reasons Olly has outlined. I think a lot of NZ's don't buy commercial properties as opposed to residential ones, as the better commercial properties are often very expensive, in the millions, as this is one instance when size really does matter.
 
What's the commercial property like over there in South Australia, gummy?

Hello DB : Truth be told ,

Hello DB : Truth be told , I've not looked at the commercial property market here in Sth Oz ... having too much fun picking up shares in excellent small companies on the ASX ......
 
.... I wish , I dearly wish that the NZX had more depth , in the way the Aussie stockmarket does ...
 
Pottering around Strathalbyn in the Adelaide Hills a few days ago , and there was Fulton Hogan , doing contracting work .... what a pity they're not listed on the NZX ... or even Fonterrible , for that matter .......

Seems that Paul Krugman has

Seems that Paul Krugman has completely under-estimated the scale of ignorance which can be encountered in practise,
"Leave aside the continuing confusion between the argument that banks can create inside money — which nobody denies — and the claim that they can create unlimited amounts of inside money, never mind the size of the monetary base, which is what is at issue."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/things-i-should-not-be-wasting-time-on/
Only 'David B' would deny something that Paul Krugman thinks nobody would deny, but there he is doing it.
To be honest with you I wish retail banks would just create money out of thin air. 
Naturally, the most ignorant debater is also the most arrogant, and David B is the primary source of the 'flat-earth' monica. However, his ability to be completely and utterly ignorant of anything he is debating is once again truely absolutely flabergasting.
 

Im sorry you are expecting

Im sorry you are expecting sense from DavidB? Ive never seen any in 12 odd months....or anything constructive....
regards
 

....... au contraire , mon

....... au contraire , mon ami ......DB speaks simple commonsense ;  which is a breath of fresh air where so many tie themselves up in knots of well-meaning do-gooding socialist platitudes ....
 
He's not advocating using the government to pick the wallets of productive folks'  to gift " free " money to the indigent & ne'er do wells !
 
Brilliant chap , DB !

Why thank you, Gummy. I feel

Why thank you, Gummy. I feel the same way about you. A true gentleman and a scholar!

...... we're a dying breed ,

...... we're a dying breed , those of us who believe that folks gotta take personal responsibilty for their lives , and for their mistakes .......
 
Check out the Eurozone ....... those feckless blundering socialists now want India , China & NZ to give $ mega-billions to the IMF , in case they need bailing out of their bucolic bureaucratic  experiment in unified economics ...... the Eurozone is a festering corpse ,  bury the bloody thing !
 
Funny old world we live in , DB .

Same challenge to you as

Same challenge to you as Chris above oh so wise one. I will go toe to toe with you in an IQ test anytime buddy.
 
Put up or shut up.

IQ CAGE FIGHT! There's

IQ CAGE FIGHT!
There's nothing about this idea that isn't hilarious.

You're pathetic.

You're pathetic.

Put up or shut up instead of

Put up or shut up instead of whining.

You appear really keen to

You appear really keen to keep your eyes closed on this one Chris. I see you don't consider amateurs reliable testimony, maybe some other quotes.
"Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I 'lend out' $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the 'fraction' in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but simply can counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the nineteenth century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
"Leave aside the continuing confusion between the argument that banks can create inside money — which nobody denies — and the claim that they can create unlimited amounts of inside money, never mind the size of the monetary base, which is what is at issue. Oh, and you know, I do know about T-accounts."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/things-i-should-not-be-wasting-time-on/
"In the real world a bank loan increases 'impatient's' spending power without reducing 'patient's' so that the level of private debt does matter."
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2012/03/21/my-paper-for-inets-berlin-2012-conference/
Note the the Krugman - Keen debate is about how the fact that banks create this 'inside money' should be modeled in economic models.
 
 
 

NtNZ you are completely

NtNZ you are completely nuts!!
 
So where did the $10,000 that was lent come from?? 
 
It came from depositors funds - not thin air.  It would be lovely if it could come from thin air.  Unfortunately it doesn't.
 
There seems to be a band of loonies who read parts of articles and form opinions based on their lack of knowledge.
 
Your all as bad as the pro-property loons that drove up the market in the 2002-2007 only to change tack when the market changed.
 
Olly Newland, myself and many others know something about investing long term that you simply don't comprehend.

Chris J, You are 100%

Chris J,
You are 100% right.
Be great if could start a Bank with $1k and lend out $10k straight away.
Banks need to have cash in the bank to lend out at startup and can only relend monies out if the proceeds of those loans are returned to them by way of deposits.(hence Banks are compeditive over obtaining deposits and why lending ground to a halt via GFC).
Banks need funds/cash to lend out and they have to pay that by way of interest to depositors.
If in any doubt have a look at a Banks Balance Sheet and P & L to see things called Liabilities (Deposits) and Interest Expense (Interest paid to those depositors)
Agree Banks Lending is limited to amount of their capital as imposed by regulations from Central Banks and Banks can leverage off their capital up to 9 times BUT they still rely of funding to be able to make these loans.
If you listened to half the uninformed who contrubute to this blog they would think Banks simply can make any amount of loans they want without any relience on how they are going to fund them.
 

So, I gather that you and

So, I gather that you and Chris concede that the banks do write their loans into existance as accounting entries.
We can debate also the ability of central bank regulations to constraign lending, and hence the limit on how much they can do this, but at this point Chris has to concede because he has not presented an argument. I am sure the noble southerner will be happy to accept Chris apology.
He just keeps saying that could not possibly be true, when in fact it obviously is. Its not even really in dispute in fact, the only dispute is what the effects of this are (for economic theory) and if its a sound way to implement a money system going forward.
 
 
 

Loans are recorded by way of

Loans are recorded by way of accounting entries in the exact way all other assets, liabilities, income and expenses are recorded.
The point that you do not concede is that Banks are also restricted on their ability to lend by the level of deposits (liabilities) they hold.
As per Accounting 101:
Assets (Loans and other advances) = Liabilities (Deposits) + Shareholders Funds (Banks Capital)
The amount of lending is restricted by amount of deposits a bank has or the amount of shareholders funds.
(yes banks balance sheets are the reverse of a normal business but the fundamental is still the same Assets = Liabilities + Shareholders funds)
 
 

You obviously have to concede

You obviously have to concede the first point, there is obviously a way for banks to create loans as accounting entries in double book keeping, Chris already pointed out what this is and that it is the method used. Double entry book keeping does not prevent banks creating money as accounting entries (which is exactly what Chris calls Scarfie a lunatic for saying), you concede this point, moving on.
No, I do not concede that banks are either restricted in their ability to lend, especially, by the level of deposits they hold. They are also not very restricted in the amount of reserves they hold.
Here is a paper, where two economists empirically show the opposite to be true of the US monetary system,
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr1421.pdf
present your argument, and maybe the validity of this will be up for debate. Note they explicitely state the money multiplier is a myth, in this paper.
Your argument, that the reserve system constrains banks might be true, if they had to have their books in order at all times. But in fact they don't, they only do this intermittently I understand typically 60 days after making a loan they need to balance this entry.
 
 

NtNZ, your argument is plain

NtNZ, your argument is plain loony.
 
A bank gets deposits or money market funding in real dollars and lends out real dollars (real as opposed to the fictitious money the above lot seem to think exists - no relation to anything Brazilian!).
 
If retail banks simply created money by accounting measures then everyone (including me) would be starting a bank!!
 
Imbecile rants confusing banks' capital reserves with the amount of funds that are available to lend is just infantile nonsense.
 
Show me this money creation on a retail banks balance sheet!!

A bank gets deposits or money

A bank gets deposits or money market funding in real dollars and lends out real dollars.
Does this include paper currency and coins? Yes. Does this include electronic currency? Yes. Lets agree, for the sake of argument that this meets your definition of 'real' dollars. Please correct me if this does not meet your definition.
So can a bank then owe more in deposits than it can pay at any given moment? Yes.
You already conceded this, and this is exactly what you accused Scarfie of lunacy for saying. Frankly you owe him an apology, but I won't be holding my breath to see it.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Do you actually have an

Do you actually have an argument to present? You have completely failed to dispute the point, banks create deposits as accounting entries, and banks deposits function as money. It seems you are deeply uncomfortable with this fact. Take from it what you will, but its a fact.
For conceding that, you should apologise to the noble southerner. Maybe we could also debate the constraint on commercial banks to lend, but that is quite clearly a different question.
 

For the love of God, NtNZ. 

For the love of God, NtNZ.  If a bank has to have enough cash to repay all depositors then it can do nothing but hold cash!!
 
Therefore the only amount of money a bank could pay in interest would be the overnight cash rate less the margin the bank needs to charge for operating banking services.  Hence in the US retail banks would have to charge you something like 1.5%PA to hold your money!!  Which means everyone would hoard notes and coins and banks likely would cease to exist as we know them!!!
 
All absolute lunancy.
 
The very thought of how stupid your arguments are, and your ardent belief in them .... rrrrrrr, the mind boggles...........

For the love of God, NtNZ. 

For the love of God, NtNZ.  If a bank has to have enough cash to repay all depositors then it can do nothing but hold cash!!
Of course, and they can't possibly be doing that, and they are not, that is exactly what I said, and so they must be creating the difference, the extra deposit balance as accounting entries. The balance of the difference doesn't exist as currency, even virtual currency, and so it must exist only as an accounting entry.
In fact its exactly the accounting entry which you quoted (in double entry book keeping terms) and this is how commercial banks create money. I think we are really getting somewhere now.
So as you can see when Scarfie says banks create money out of thin air, he actually obviously means banks create money as accounting entries and thats what they do and that is why he said they do it.
I really don't understand why you have a problem with understanding this, you appear to be saying banks don't create money out of thin air, and then presenting a whole bunch of evidence to show that they do. In fact that statement is obviously consistent with the 'money multiplier' model, its consistent with Paul Krugman and Murray N. Rothbard (who think the money multiplier model is functional). If appologising to Scarfie is really that hard why don't you just sign off?
 

Oh, Good Lord, you are

Oh, Good Lord, you are completely insane!!!!!  "Creating the difference" - what on earth are you talking about.
 
Clearly you are related to a brick wall.

As you said, banks owe more

As you said, banks owe more money than they have available at any time as reserve assets or currency. That amount is the balance of 'the difference' and its created by accounting entries by banks. Ergo you own Scarfie an apology, because he said that and you called him a loon for saying it.
Does it hurt that your debating skills don't match those of a brick wall?
 
 
 

Wrong, Banks do not wait 60

Wrong,
Banks do not wait 60 days to balance their entry. They are looking at their funding daily and booking funding based on known advances and  settlement dates of loans.
They price their cost of funds daily and know margins which is critical especially with fixed rate lending.
Banks spend a huge amount of time and effort in managing their positions and its not like the local darts club that checks the cash in the tin once in a while.
Sorry but when you make comments like the one below:
But in fact they don't, they only do this intermittently I understand typically 60 days after making a loan they need to balance this entry.
No, I do not concede that banks are either restricted in their ability to lend, especially, by the level of deposits they hold. They are also not very restricted in the amount of reserves they hold.
It just reinforces that your comments are made from what appears to be a uninformed position with little knowledge of the NZ Banking system.
(PS I have a large amount of knowledge of bank operational lending systems and processes having been involved in it to a high degree)
 
 

Good, you concede that

Good, you concede that Scarfie has at least the first point right. The second contention is certainly debateable. Keen and Krugman are both quite eminent, and on different sides of this debate.
Are you claiming that the NZ system is different in behaviour to the US system? Or that the paper I presented is wrong, its not a long read at all.
 

  Good to debate such an

 
Good to debate such an expert, maybe you can teach me something then,
"Disclosure  requirements
A key feature of the banking supervision framework is the requirement for banks to make regular, comprehensive financial disclosures.  All registered banks are required to make quarterly disclosures of key accounting and prudential information. The main   elements of the disclosure requirements are as follows:
* Banks are required to issue disclosure statements in two forms each quarter: a comprehensive General Disclosure Statement (GDS), containing a wide range of detailed financial and prudential information; and a Key Information Summary (KIS), which is a brief document containing just a summary of key prudential and financial information (including the bank’s credit rating and recent changes to that rating).  The GDS is aimed at the professional investor or analyst, while the KIS is aimed at the non-expert depositor.  The KIS must be displayed and available in every bank branch and be disclosed on the bank’s website. Banks must make copies of their GDS available immediately at their head offices and within five working days from a branch or agency."
...
"* For the end of year and half-year, the financial disclosures contained in the GDS include comprehensive balance sheet, income statement, asset quality information, information on capital adequacy, large exposures, connected exposures, sectoral exposures, credit rating and recent changes to that rating, market risk position (covering interest rate risk, exchange rate risk and equity risk across the entire bank and banking group), and descriptions of the bank’s risk management systems."
 
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2002_2006/2003dec66_4mortlock.pdf
I guess you can explain why this is a poor source?
 

Here you are talking about

Here you are talking about disclosure which is a reporting issue vs. an operational issue I was talking about (what happens on a daily basis  within a bank and its lending operation).
The way you worded the following:
Your argument, that the reserve system constrains banks might be true, if they had to have their books in order at all times. But in fact they don't, they only do this intermittently I understand typically 60 days after making a loan they need to balance this entry.

can make a reader assume that you think banks don't know their position until up to 60 days after a loan has advanced.
They know the next morning the banks position after the intecharge of payment between banks overnight.
They only have to report to public the infomation in KIS and GDS eiether 3 or 6 monthly.
You can be assured most branch or unit managers know the position of the businesses they manage up to daily as well (I know of at least one Bank where a trail balance is produced each morning for reporting purposes down to branch level).
 

I can't make a reader assume

I can't make a reader assume anything, obviously.
So maybe you should elabourate how much of a constraint this imposes on bank lending. For example what happens if the branch manager comes in and the bank is out of compliance one day, in this case do they shut up the loans window? If you want to claim this system constrains lending you need to explain clearly when it prevents lending from happening.
Then we might debate how much of a constraint this turns out to be in practise, or you could just concede now. The Kydland and Prescott paper I referenced (there are other sources) is pretty equivocal. Its not a constraint, its a myth that this is a constraint. Of course you can only measure this from the top down, and studies don't exist which show that the money multiplier is a good model, though there are many which show its a poor model.
 
 

Money Man, thanks for the

Money Man, thanks for the support but it quite clear that NtNZ, scarfie and pdk are a bunch of escaped lunatics who defy all reason and logic on a daily basis.
 
They're the easily brainwashed type so fixated on an illogical ideology that no sound or reasoned argument would deter them from their irrational (and downright incorrect) understanding of a basic system.
 
They simply believe that the corrupt system is responsible for their own inadequacies and their failure to succeed.
 
Perhaps we should leave them to sit on the street corner chanting their incoherent ravings and walk away bewildered but definitely amused that such utterly stupid people manage to actually exist!!!!!

So do you actually have

So do you actually have anything to add to the actual argument, or did you lose the debate with a bunch of escaped easily brainwashed fanatical ideological lunatics, chanting incoherent ravings?
 
 

My point proven.

My point proven.

Turns out Chris that Steve

Turns out Chris that Steve Keen has just covered the entire disagreement we were having,
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2012/04/21/just-banking-presentation/
Though no doubt this subtle point will be lost on you, your criticism of Scarfie was for a statement which literally every single economist accepts. Steve quotes many economists in his presentation, and all of them agree with what Scarfie said, Banks, all banks, do create money by accounting entry.
"Although no new money was physically created in addition to the initial $100 deposit, new commercial bank money is created through loans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Reserve_Banking#Example_of_deposit_multiplication
You are either extremely thick, or have been trying to retain some credibility from a debate by repeated bluster, because you realise you lost the debate and have no argument to back up your position.

NtNZ the debate's over bar

NtNZ the debate's over bar one final point below.  But you and the others (who also recently absconded from an asylum) are welcome to rant amongst yourselves.
 
Final point: is that you completely miss the point on the money creation issue.  Of course money supply is increased when a deposit is made at a bank and a corresponding loan is advanced, what scarfie and you other loons argue is that this is somehow free money or money out of thin air - oh what a load of nonsense!!!!!  No one can create free money except central banks.
 
Tell me, if I lend you a dollar bill and you lend it to a friend does that create money out of thin air - free money from nothing that I can pocket like scarfie suggests?? - of course not.  There's two of us who can list the dollar as an asset, plus a third with the note, so essentially money was created but it's certainly not free money!!!  You, scarfie and his loons allege this is magical money that banks can produce ad infinitum, fraudulent money, to line their coffers .... what nonsense.

Come on Chris you are just

Come on Chris you are just playing on semantics. Where did I use the term 'all' in my statement? What so only 90% of peoples money is fraudulent, I am sure they would be completely assured to know that. Actually the stats Bernard posts occasionally show the leverage is worse than that. 
 
Really what you have done is another fallacious technique by sidestepping the main issue and turning the debate towards a point that is no consequence to the main point I make. And then to defend this side step you resort to abuse. By resorting to fallacious argument then anyone astute enough will see you don't actually have one. 

There's two of us who can

There's two of us who can list the dollar as an asset, plus a third with the note, so essentially money was created 
Good, so you concede. 
..., but it's certainly not free money!!!
Ok, what is the seigniorage paid on it then? What? None? So now creating money free of charge doesn't constitute free money?
You really don't learn do you, before engaging the crazy people get your facts straight and make sure you are not losing the debate, ..., again. You are not doing your profession any favours by exposing such soft headed thinking, and stating your supposed cridentials.
You should give up at this point, because if you were paying attention to the facts you will find your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. It seems you think you can win a debate, simply with incessant name calling, but it is obviously completely meaningless what you moniker me regardless of how many times you repeat it.
 

.

.

ChrisJ... u are wrong on this

ChrisJ... u are wrong on this one..!!
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf
The Private Banking sector does create money.
It does this in the form of "credit " ie. loans...  which is considered money.
So.. Banks can and do create money out of thin air....    call me a loon..     :)
It is a bit more complex than that ...  but that is the gist of it..  Almost all of our money supply growth is thru the Banks creation of credit.
Cheers Roelof

More imbeciles, with

More imbeciles, with infantile support documents!!!!!  Are you 12??
 
Because banks create credit doesn't mean they can print "free" money as the loopies on this site like scarfie and NtNZ suggest.
 
You lot need to insert a brain before you speak again!!!!!!!!!

Clearly NtNZ you are so

Clearly NtNZ you are so incredibly stupid that you believe money is fraudulent or "made up" or "free" if it is not backed directly by notes or coins!!!!!!   And according to scarfie that "free" money is actually free money (ie retail banks print their own profits!!!), that of course is all the biggest load of rubbish ever.
 
I suspect that it is scarfie's and your own limited intellectual capacity which has left you to misinterpret the writings of some who rightly or wrongly blame recent economic woes on loose credit expansion and contraction. 
 
The two loons have misconstrued the expansion of credit as money printing when in fact the credit is always backed by deposits.  If a bank requires a 20% reserve as your example suggests, then if the bank's reserve is $100 they can only lend $500 if they have $500 in deposits!!!!!  The money does not come out of thin air to lend out!!!!!!!
 
Would one of the lunatics please tell me: if I put a sticker saying "bank" on their forehead and they only had $100 in their pocket and no other access to cash, then how would they lend me $500??????  How??????  Only if someone gave the moron $500 in a deposit!!!!!!
 
Money is not free ever unless you are the Government and you chose to print it.
 
You show your stupidity mixing seigniorage (the money made from printing money) with what is purely an expansion of credit.
 
Only moronic loons could possibly confuse, or be stupid enough to believe that retail banks can make money out of thin air!!!!!!
 
Tell me, if 10, 50 or 1000 people in a chain of buyers and sellers use a note or notes, say they each bought a house for $1m, how much money actually existed?????
 
1000 transactions occurred where $1billion was spent - but only $1million dollars ever needed to exist for that to happen.
 
The loons that disagree are free to endlessly rant amongst themselves.

reply at page end, soon.

reply at page end, soon.

Here you are talking about

Here you are talking about disclosure which is a reporting issue vs. an operational issue I was talking about (what happens on a daily basis  within a bank and its lending operation).
The way you worded the following:
Your argument, that the reserve system constrains banks might be true, if they had to have their books in order at all times. But in fact they don't, they only do this intermittently I understand typically 60 days after making a loan they need to balance this entry.

can make a reader assume that you think banks don't know their position until up to 60 days after a loan has advanced.
They know the next morning the banks position after the intecharge of payment between banks overnight.
They only have to report to public the infomation in KIS and GDS eiether 3 or 6 monthly.
You can be assured most branch or unit managers know the position of the businesses they manage up to daily as well (I know of at least one Bank where a trail balance is produced each morning for reporting purposes down to branch level).
 

Good to see you are paying

Good to see you are paying attention, I am quoting, verbatim, Murray N. Rothbard there.
 

While I have no doubt others

While I have no doubt others have addressed the errors and deficiencies in your arguments, I simply cannot believe that you fail to see the obvious errors.
First of all, ‘in the absence of a Central Bank’. There is no such thing. I live in the real world, (maybe you don’t) and in New Zealand we have a central bank. That is the beginning, the middle and end of the story. There is no such thing as an absence of a central bank in New Zealand. Twisting reality as an attempt to justify your argument when we are dealing with an objective reality that exists is just bizarre. So if the very beginning of your premise is already so incredibly flawed, what possible relevance is there in the rest of it?
 
Does your mind work in mysterious ways, for example like this?
 
If Maori had lived in Britain instead of New Zealand, this is how they would be living, which in turn proves that there are no indigenous people from the Auckland Islands. No worries, mate, box of birds.  
 
Secondly, let’s say I open a bank, as you suggest, and I take in $1000 in cash as a deposit from my very first customer. Yipee I’m in business! Now let’s see what happens when I create money out of thin air and then try to lend that out as $10,000 to another customer.
 
Customer #2 walks in and says, “can I have a loan of $10,000 please?” “Most certainly you can”, I say, “that will be at an interest rate of 12.5%”. “Very good”, they reply “I’m off to buy a car”. “May I take the $10,000 in cash with me now?” “Most certainly” I say, and with a flourish of my hand to create the $10,000 out of thin air, I open up my draw to withdraw the cash. Oh no, disaster. I only have $1000 sitting in the draw!
 
I am simply stunned that you cannot see that, and that the entire construction of your thesis is just such utter rubbish. Banks are so much more complex and regulated than you are making them out to be. I would spend some of my time reading up about it if I were you, and take extra effort to ensure that I had understood everything correctly.

I replied to this, but I will

I replied to this, but I will point out again, that example was invented by Murray Rothbard, its a simplification but bank runs (which is what you are describing) do happen. So the example is not contradicted, banking really works this way.
N.B everybody has been very clear on this, money is created, not currency or electronic currency. Only a central bank can create currency or electronic currency, but this is not contentious.
So would you regard your deposit account balance as money you can spend, even right now if you wanted to?
I am very simple minded, when the main stream model of banking explains banks create money out of accounting entries, I tend to believe it.
under Money creation,
"Although no new money was physically created in addition to the initial $100 deposit, new commercial bank money is created through loans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
Maybe you should try editing this wikipedia entry, you seem to be saying its incorrect, I am sure they would appreciate the record being set straight.
 

Nic, a lot of people have

Nic, a lot of people have trouble understanding how the system really works. When it's explained to them they either have A mild breakdown or they deny deny deny. Let's remember that when one has worked hard and scrimped and saved every cent, the truth of money creation makes it all seem well...a waste of time.

  I didn't realise this was

 
I didn't realise this was still going. Lol. Keep in mind my barb is targeting at those that haven't 'worked' for their money, but those who aquired it for free by leveraging against property(leverage being the key more than property) using money already leveraged by the bank. I use the term criminal sincerely, as the thinking is exactly that. Intentionally taking something without regard to the consequences of the victims. Those who howl the loudest have the greatest intent.
 
You are right, for most people the step from the fantasy to reality is too great. But my intent in this isn't to convert those who protest, but to hope that someone reading these threads has their curiousity stimulated to go searching for the truth themselves.
 
A good start point that completely undermines the argument put here by several posters, including dopey Dave above, is to search interest.co under charts for the money supply. Here people will see the physical money supply, consisting of notes and coins, listed as M0. If you compare that to the total money supply (desriptions provided), which includes all the electronic money, there is a huge disparity. A 63:1 ratio of real to electronic when I last did the calculation. Further if you divide M0 by the population then New Zealand has less that $1000 per person in cold hard cash.

So..........if everyone went

So..........if everyone went bank to their bank and asked to cash up after selling their property say  the banks would be fine ya reckon?
Bartering is perfectly legal by the way. There is NO law that states you must pay income tax IF you decide to reframe from EVER applying for a IRD No.  I suggest you (rather than rant cause CHCH ain't working out for you) get educated about the real monetary & tax system.
It is ALL a fraud and Scarfie, Wolly and others are 100% on the ball 

More illiterate loons joining

More illiterate loons joining in!!
 
I love it when people don't know how to spell commonly used words!  Refrain.  Demonstration of our super education system!! 
 
BTW just because you don't have an IRD number doesn't mean you don't have to pay tax.  Give me your name and address so I can pass it on to the IRD's evasion squad!!
 
You loonies are a laugh a second!!

Quite right. I have always

Quite right. I have always spelled quite poorly. I will accept the monica of, 'the illiterate loon' but you will have to bargan for calling Scarfie 'the noble southerner' from this point forward. I mean at least he has not refuted his own accusations yet. I think thats kind of noble, in a Don Kyote way. Just because 'the don' tilted at wind mills that doesn't really mean the wind mills were not out to get him does it. Wind mills could be quite dangerous if you are not paying attention.
 
 

Well,  talking about names

Well,  talking about names and addresess, was that you  Chirs _J ,  that spat details out of your local_host a couple of months back,   you know the one, a MS Word Doc gone wrong?  You tried to delete it , but were not quick enough.
A word to the wise. Stick to your knitting.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
So how about a little less of the 'give me your name and address' shit.
Seems resonable to me.
 

For goodness sake moa man, I

For goodness sake moa man, I don't care if people know who I am!  Bernard and David know.
 
You miss the point of the comment, Justice suggested tax evasion was legal, I suggest if he is so convinced of his position he pass it by the IRD who may take a different view!!!!!!

No I dont think somehow you

No I dont think somehow you can "legally" dodge the IRD merely from not applying for an IRD number....besides which that would apply to non-NZers, pretty sure you get one at birth.
Now if you live your life bartering, well thats possible (quite how you get electricity say just with barter is mind boggling), however I believe some ppl have found out that the IRD can turn up and assess your lifestyle and "do you" for tax.....?  So its a Q of when you get caught....
Now there was a bartercard, not sure if it exists any more...?  but again thats a single point the IRD can tap?....sure it may not be possible/legal for the IRD to do so right now, but how long will that last?
I wouldnt say its all a fraud myself.....the banking system is necessary....its just out of control.......I suspect because its masking the high cost and availability of energy....really its making future calls on these that cannot be met.....
Also in terms of bartering its subsistence living....you get no complex societies from that, which means a very basic lifestyle....
regards
 
 
 
 

Steven I think there has

Steven I think there has always been money, and probably always some form of banking. But it is when Bankers realised they could fractionally reserve their deposits that things came off the rails. Fiat isn't necessarily a problem, but is open to manipulation. So it isn't money and banking that is the evil, it is how it is conducted. The clowns in this thread that accuse me of advocating bartering are attributing statements to me that I have not made. I short they are practicing dishonesty in their argument. There is a real problem with these guys using fallacies or argument, you can point them out in almost every post they make (to use my own :-)
 
IRD number, well I can remember putting my assigned number on my School Cert art portfolio. Turned out later it was also my IRD number.
 
Interest is also a real problem, and if you boil it right down to its root you will find that it is energy that has paid the interest. Energy has supported parabolic population growth and these new people coming in have supported the ponzi, until now. If we peaked in the rate of growth in 1961, then the problem first showed up about then. They muddled along but finally the US had to go off the gold standard. I direct correlation to money and peak resources there I believe, which it seems you also see. Everything else has simply been trickery to hide the fact we are in trouble.
 
I had an interesting chat with an aquaintance on Friday. Elderly PhD sort of fellow, who actually used the term 'inflexion point' in relation to the population graph before I did. He gets it, which is why this ex yank has been in NZ for 30 years.

If you accept David Graeber's

If you accept David Graeber's latest book, 'Debt the first 5000 years', then money has always been debt based.

I am glad you have been

I am glad you have been holding the bat for a couple of days Nic:-) 

Objectively its like dodo

Objectively its like dodo clubbing, its not really sporting.
 

I think you really ought to

I think you really ought to give up on this concept because its complete hog wash.
To lay out two cases compare two people similar in every was, except their manner of, buying a house,
The first person saves the deposit, and borrows the remaining funds. 
The second person saves the entire purchase price and pays cash.
Who is now better off financially after this transaction? Its quite clear the second person is. So in fact the cash buyers are better off than credit buyers, because they will dedicate less of their future income to owning their home outright.
So then your entire argument comes down to an argument that the aggregate price of houses must rise each year, no matter what. However that just happens to be completely untrue, in fact its quite clearly contradicted by the house price index.
http://www.interest.co.nz/charts/real-estate/house-price-index-reinz-rbnz
In fact you are denying the existance of many a housing bubble, which has already collapsed. If house prices really had to increase anually, you would not get housing bubbles, would you, because housing would be a guaranteed win at least over a year.
 

You conveniently forget to

You conveniently forget to mention the opportunity costs of your little scenario...........
 
 

Why is that relevant? All the

Why is that relevant? All the thought experiment shows is that buying on borrowed money does not automatically make you richer. Thats all it needs to show.
 

For a house what is the

For a house what is the opportunity value? I suggest its zero...
Its only an opportunity if it gives a unique payback.....ie if you dont buy you rent, so you get value that way so it cancels out.
So if I buy a tool that allows me to be 20% faster and more accurate in my work there is indeed an obvious opportunity I should take, provided the tool works out at say 50% % of that advantage.
Otherwise you have merely consumed...
regards

I think you need to consider

I think you need to consider three things provided there is no risk of deflation.
1) where do you live while you save? and if the cost pay the rent is bigger than the interest due then surely buying early makes sense?
2) The former wins on inflation....in effect its also tax free income....the latter loses on income, usually carries more risk and has to pay tax on the interest. 
To save enough money in a non-bubble priced house would take how long? If I look at the old price of my house it would take me 20 years to save to buy it.....
3) Opportunity cost?
Now today of course we have a bubble (I dont agree its collapsed, this is just the start IMHO) so there is a huge risk of loss when that bursts, plus loss deflation from a Greater Depression, so the latter has advantages for now....which I might have missed being said,
a) Liquidity...you can move easily at little loss.
b) Lower eventual purchase price.
c) no significant losses.
regards
 
 
 
 

Ok, all these things would be

Ok, all these things would be worth considering if I was trying to explain when its a good or bad time to buy. In fact Scarfie was claiming that house buyers get an automatic, free win, due to the financial system and borrowing mechanisms. This was based on the mistaken idea that house prices have to go up, at least over a full year, due to the working of the financial system. Obviously they don't always go up. Borrowing money to buy a house is a risky business, especially at present. I think its enough just to show that borrowers are taking a significant risk to dismiss the idea of borrowing money being a morally reprehensible behaviour.
Its pretty obvious I think that the main winners from the housing bubble have been bankers, even during the inflationary period. Those people who saw their house prices double or better over 10 years were quite pleased of course. But that doesn't mean they would have been worse off if they had not contributed a lot of their income to the financial sector in the first place. Obviously not everyone can have been so lucky either. In aggregate the real economy just committed more and more income to the financial economy, this can't have been on aggregate good for those in the real economy can it.
 

"Of course the astute person

"Of course the astute person will see that less and less young people are entering the work force year on year,
Would you kindly be "astute" enough to provide the link with the data showing that less and less young people are entering the work force each year.  I would have thought that globally, not only are more and more young people entering the work force, they are doing so at an unprecedented rate. Furthermore, I would humbly suggest that the productivity and remuneration of  said young people is also increasing quite nicely thanks.
And yes, we know the rate of population growth peaked about a generation ago. What I want you to do is verify your claim that less and less young people are entering the work force. Do that and your chocolate fish is in the mail :)

VF -of course more young folk

VF -of course more young folk are 'entering the workforce', globally, while the growth in rate of population may have peaked, there's an age-related lag in all things, including (it beats most folk, this) procreation.
Productivity may well be increasing - that measure includes the trend to slave labour/ non-wages. Renuneration is a different thing entirely, and I challenge you on that. It simply cannot be so.
Telling indeed that you would run the two together.
Scarfie is right re the first world, though. Spain (I've just had a young Spanish visitor) has 50% unemployment in the u25 bracket - he said it's worse in that the other 50% are on stuff-all.

Mish Shedlock and Karl

Mish Shedlock and Karl Denninger have been putting up a fair few posts re Spain lately
easy enough to google for +spain +unemployment +mish
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/spanish-economic-d...
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/eurozone-unemploym...
 
And while I didn't google Denninger, I recalled there was a recent post about Spain...
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=204874
Greece youth employment doesn't look too flash either... 

Does anyone know why Mish has

Does anyone know why Mish has gone and purchased all the various top-level domains ?

Isn't that obvious, he is in

Isn't that obvious, he is in the business of self promotion, and now is his time to shine.
 

Standard available

Standard available Demographic data?  and what about your URLs?
"Furthermore, I would humbly suggest that the productivity and remuneration of  said young people is also increasing quite nicely thanks."
Also who cares "globally"? are you cherry picking? its Nation centric I would suggest.
but anyway,
The youth employment rate has dropped 8% in twenty years
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-alarming-charts-on-the-global-youth-une...
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/22/the-global-youth-unempl...
Yet youth un-employment is typically around twice that of "mature" workers.....debt from education would also seem to be far higher than for previous generations.....and such can mark them for life....
http://www.economist.com/node/21528614
Hence I seriously wonder about your suggestions being correct.
regards

Scarfie: What do you do to

Scarfie:
What do you do to make a living?
Have you got money in the bank  earning interest?
Have you borrowed money now or ever?
Do you own house?
How did you pay for it ?
If so would you sell it for what you paid or it?
if you rent do you pay rent to a "scum bag" owner.
If so why?
Or are you a free loader on the social welfare system?
The "criminal class"  ( and your landlord/mortgagee) would like to know.
 

Bg Daddy - I can't

Bg Daddy - I can't resist....
1 - define 'make a living'. I suggest you read Solly's 'negative pigs' piece, and that Martenson piece, before replying (negative pigs, like fiat money, doesn't exist, and therefore isn't 'earned').
2. If he has, it's earning capacity is reducing as it sits, but mostlythat's a negative pig too. Very little exists when the music stops.
3. irrelevant - even if he had, he's allowed to learn.
4. If he does, he at least has something real (there I agree with you, in that bricks and mortar actually exist).
5. History is not applicable henceforth. Borrowing is a borrow from the physical future, and unfortunately, that has reached the limit in ability-to-underwrite. Expectation (money, proxy) far exceeds the underwrite at the moment, somewhat disguised by most folk happy to accept it in dormant form (electronic '1's and '0's).
6. a conscience choice. Depends on his degree of altruism or selfishness.
7. If an owner is attempting to profit from an existing pile of bricks and mortar, then the actual underwrite has to come from somewhere else (the landlord expects to buy real stuff with that 'profit', right?)
8. I doubt he's a welfare recipient (sounds too smart and not a loser, to me) but I'd make the point that a good number of folk do worse things than many beneficiaries: i'm talking of real impacts, of course: Being involved in the production and/or burning of coal , for instance, is far worse for the planet than a drawing a DPB.
Which is where I agree with Scarfie - we need to define what 'criminal' is, and perhaps the threshold needs to be 'from the view-point of the 7th generation'.
www.facingthefuture.org/Portals/0/Documents/Articles/NIE_1b.pdf

sounds too smart - that's the

sounds too smart - that's the funniest thing I've heard all week!!!
 
scarfie clearly doesn't own a house - he lives under a rock!

Niether do you , the bank own

Niether do you , the bank own most of those assets you class as 'yours'

I think we are using the

I think we are using the wrong word in "criminal" its more like amoral, but yes, you could extend the meaning of amoral to a state/situation where eventually society makes the amoral undertaking criminal...
I certianly think we should be questioning just how the creation of money/wealth out of thin air (interest) that has to be under-written by having more energy to support it when it isnt going to be available is right.
regards
 
 

A classic fallacy of argument

A classic fallacy of argument is to try and discredit the opponent. This isn't about my actions BigDaddy, I am proud of what I have done to serve this society and sleep quite straight at night. The question is what exactly have you done to make a contribution?
 
In fact because of your lecherious property investment activity the question becomes what have you done, or do you intend to do, to redeem the negative ledger you have.

I'm guessing he's going to

I'm guessing he's going to say:
- gave a donation to the National Party
- let someone get their rental deposit back once

I'm guessing he's going to

I'm guessing he's going to say:
- gave a donation to the National Party
- let someone get their rental deposit back once

discredit the opponent - you

discredit the opponent - you guys are full of laughs!!!
 
Lecherous isn't a compliment nor is criminality!!

"Scarfie: What do you do to

"Scarfie:
What do you do to make a living?"
Answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

You successfully describe

You successfully describe yourself. Firstly what does your comment contribute? What do you actually contribute? I am picking bugger all. Lastly and most telling is my accusation still stands unrefuted because the scum I address don't actually have an answer. You just added yourself to that list.

I told you he lived under a

I told you he lived under a rock!

Ollie, if you are just going

Ollie, if you are just going to bitch and moan about how much tax you pay, I think you should fess up and include your personal tax summary, just to show how unfair the situation actually is. In the absense, I think people find it extremely hard to feel sorry for your whiny self.
It’s no wonder that there is a growing rental crisis, and increasing homelessness, all aided and abetted by the recent tax disadvantages which have, as expected, had the exact opposite effect from what was intended.
So, what is the connection between the government closing some tax loopholes and homelessness? Is there one as a parallel mention might imply, or is this sentance a vulgar attempt to garner simpathy for a self serving anti-tax argument.
Frankly Ollie ought to be ashamed for showing such utter contempt for homeless people.
 
 

Scarfie, I own my home and

Scarfie, I own my home and have a mortgage on it. I think I'll go down to the local police station tomorrow and turn myself in........I just can't live with the guilt anymore. 

You should, being in the

You should, being in the financial service industry you must know all to well what I allege is correct. But you choose to dance with the devil. It won't be the Police you have to worry about, when this all gets turned on its head the Police will be powerless to defend you. Better hope our leadership vacuum continues and no one rallies the mob.

AFM - so help me, you can't

AFM - so help me, you can't have it both ways.
 
Either you own your own home, or there is a mortgage over it.
 
Those are mutually exclusive statements.
 
It's not your guilt you should be worried about, when did you last have an IQ test?

PDK, that's a moronic

PDK, that's a moronic statement.
 
By that reasoning nothing you own is yours because someone else always has ultimately more control over it!  A court can confiscate your assets because you didn't pay a bill or your taxes, a Government can requisition assets if it sees fit, &c, &c.
 
If you own a property title - you own it, it might be worthless, it might have more debt on it than it's worth but no one else can do anything to it without a High Court Order.
 
If you don't pay your medical bills when you get old the District Health Board can repossess your house just like a bank can.  If you don't pay your rates the Council can sell it under the Rating Powers Act with very little effort required - your idea about bank debt being different is delusional and illogical.
 
PDK and scarfie, you guys are just plain old fashioned nuts!

Not so moronic ChrisJ. When

Not so moronic ChrisJ. When Title to a property is in your name and is Freehold you might be right. But if there is a mortgage or lien over the property you merely have possesion but no longer enjoy the normal rights of "ownership".

Iconoclast you too are a

Iconoclast you too are a moron.  What "normal" rights of ownership doesn't someone with a mortgage have - just one as far as I recall - that is they can't do something that would destroy a property's value without the mortgagee's consent (ie you'll get in trouble if you demolish your house without telling the bank).
 
Ownership without a mortgage is little different - courts, councils, health boards or debtors can all claim a cut if you don't pay a bill - a bank can only do anything if you fail to make mortgage payments.
 
You and your friends (scarfie and pdk) who want everyone to live under a rock just love to make up nonsense about why property is bad.
 
You have all been proved wrong.
 
By the way a lot of investors don't have any bank debt.  And while you lot have been bemoaning property for years, people like me have amassed 8 figure property portfolios which in a matter of months will be mortgage free.

Well you show your complete

Well you show your complete lack of understanding of what I am stating when you allege I am saying property is bad, when we are having an discussion about money. I don't know why you actually bother to post, except I guess you have to try in some way to defend your behaviour. Keep digging Chris, that hole is getting deeper.

You called me a criminal,

You called me a criminal, scarfie.  You understand nothing.

You have good weekend Chris,

You have good weekend Chris, I will be and it starts about now.

I will.  I've been making a

I will.  I've been making a list of properties to view in between contributing to these rants.

PDK, so you are saying that

PDK, so you are saying that you don't even understand the difference between debt and equity? Ie the basic fundamentals of accounting and finance. 
You guys are great for a laugh. Goodnight all. Scarfie, good luck with the citizens arrests tomorrow. 

AFM   After your fisrt post I

AFM
 
After your fisrt post I did want to post a message of wary..
 
Unfortunatallly this site has been over taken by the crazies...
 
I remeber the good old days when wally ( artist formally known as wolly ) was the lunitic friidge.... he is now the voice of reason.....
 
We also have a gelaton hero as a moderate ... but they are few and far between
 
But Bernard let it go.. I remeber when he actually thought he was a free market guy.... lol

AFM - well aware, it was you

AFM - well aware, it was you who claimed to concurrently hold both, failing to mention proportion of equity.
 
Mark - cometh the time, cometh the message. Sorry, but the info is available. You're Dunedin based, no? I can point you to the lectures, they're not far away, physically.
 
Wee way away mentally, though. Good luck with that.

PDK since i have read your

PDK since i have read your post I have actually investigated peak oil etc. You have opened my eyes to  the problem...
 
However what you prescibe is a group of burecrates choosing what the  soloution should be.. and that just doesnt seem like it will yeild the best choice..
 
Unfortunatly I think we need to wait until we are at a crises point..
 
Personally I think it will be fusion reaction
 
Realistially this is the only way we will get exponoential energy growth
 
You have to assume in the next 100 yrs we will get there
Is that not reasonable to assume?

"Personally I think it will

"Personally I think it will be fusion reaction"
 
Two words: Coulomb barrier. Fusion is an enormously difficult challenge, regardless economic growth in the current sense is unlikely to continue forever. Below is a good post explaining the problem. The comments are a mix of people from scientific backgrounds and economic backgrounds. The differing views are quite humorous.
 
Finite physicist meets exponential economist
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Mark s Thanks for at least

Mark s
Thanks for at least replying. Most just duck and weave, do it with bombast (always reckon it denotes fear, deep down).
I suspect the change will be bottom-up, indeed as Margaret Mead once opined; no change happened any other way.
The skill-sets of the incumbent leaders are simply honed in the previous era, and they'll be the last to change - but it's entirely valid to push them.
re waiting for the crisis (by which I presume you mean the peak) that's too late. Fiat-lending and bank-magnification thereof and profit expectations far overhang the physical underwrite at that point. Which is why QE isn't working, and why in my opinion, borrowing for property is silly at this point.
Has to happen in the next 5 years (John French, Nine-to-Noon).
 
 

I think you need to learn

I think you need to learn some economics pdk, it can help to know even why certain ideas are considered correct or incorrect. I don't think QE would have worked after the great depression, but this is exactly what Milton Friedman concluded the Fed should have done in his analysis of that era. All I see is Bernanke deciding that Friedman's analysis was correct, and trying it, and then finding that this doesn't exactly work that well (though its probably saved a few banks from collapse, but it was never going to help the real economy).
I seriously doubt you can draw physical conclusions from price signals though. William Stanley Jevons invented some early ideas in supply and demand. He went on to argue (incorrectly of course) that through the iron laws of supply and demand sun spots governed the business cycle, because they influenced crop cycles and the weather patterns in various ways. He was in fact so convinced of this that he argued the astrological record of sun spots had to be incorrect, based on his own measurement of period of the business cycle to be '10.5' years.

Nic - I came at it from an

Nic - I came at it from an energy perspective, realised the peak flow had to mean peak work, and made sure I wasn't reliant on work to fund my future at that point. Pretty simple, really, and long predicted.
I've done my learning about economics since, and have had to laugh. It's over-the-shoulder, rear-view-mirror rote learning, in a nutshell (and with respect, your comment is that too). No amount of rearward looking will prepare you for a cliff ahead, although an astute appraisal of the Roman decline following 'peak wood', might be instructive.
(they, like all empires, did the hoovering-resource-from-others thing, theirs being firewood for Rome. When the energy required to cart the wood the distance, exceeded the energy returned when it was burnt, they were in energy deficit. They reacted by doing more of the same, the result was a need to clip the currency (ending 0.02% of starting content) to reflect the lessening return, to the point where even that didn't reflec the zero energy return. And the Fed is at? )
No, I agree that price-signals arent a good way to go, given that energy is the prime driver, money merely an accounting system. Energy has gotten along fine without money, since the BigBang. Money can't be underwritten without energy. Which would you track, then, to see where things are going?
Jevons did give us his paradox - that no matter what efficiency we come up with, it won't decrease the doing of whatever it was. A useful insight.
 

I think you need to examine

I think you need to examine whether economics is even worth thinking about given where we are, I suggest as the primary view, not.
NB QE was done successfuly via The New Deal.....
regards

Well maybe you start the

Well maybe you start the journey of looking at peak oil.........and No it isnt a reasonable assumption and on a grand scale....you have to start looking at a very big picture and on a huge scale.....time included....I think very few ppl can do that, and even fewer want to. I want to but I am findsing maybe I just cant grasp enough....
So some of the parts are,
Some issues with fusion,
a) Even if it works its decades away and its complex technology
Complexity,
b) The biggest problem is complexity and that means if you look at the works of Joseph Tainter etc a more complex and specialised society which means more ppl and a better standard of living ie specialisation for them.
c) To feed those more ppl and bring up their standard of living means more fossil fuels for food and also transportation...and harvesting...this means a portable source of energy and the only available, high quality, cheap and non-complex source is fossil fuels....
back to fusion
d) Fusion isnt portable and  we have a transportaion fuel problem (mostly). A fossil fuel is a huge store of easily and very cheaply transportable energy...A big tank, and a fire source  (spark) and some way to convert that to movement....the basic technology is dead simple....non-complex.
e) scale and time....say its 20 years to a production capability for Fusion, you then have to build them on a scale that is mind boggling.......it would take many decades....Thorium is closer and more probable.
Complexity,
f) Feeding more ppl , usuable water is now looking the hard limit as much as anything else.
g) AGW, even if you dont accept that humanss are causing it the globe is warming and that means more extremes in weather and that more than anything reduces or wipes out crops. So we at present are close to the limits of what is practical in food production, AGW will take away any safety margins.....and reserve stocks....
Expotential, the Universe only has so much energy...and we are on a finite planet.....If fusion worked and it wont we have to meet a limit eventually....and entropy will stop expotential if nothing else be that.
100 years, if [A]GW the models which have been accurate based on the last 30 years are anything to go by our present society has very probably at most 100 years left.....200 years max to human extinction....
but with Peak oil here today, its moot....
regards
 
 
 

Mark I don't know if you have

Mark I don't know if you have seen my posts on the population graph in the last few weeks, but the evidence of peak resources is staring us in the face. In 1961 there was an inflextion point on the, up until then, parabolic population graph. Every year since then the rate of growth has reduced and will turn negative sometime in the next generation or so. This illustrates that we are already in overshoot and the resources available won't support growth any longer.
 
There has been 50 years to find and alternative and the simple fact is we haven't. Seems to me that we won't. Energy is only one issue by the way. Water is the other elephant in the room plus there is a finite amount of some minerals, less than a generation at current demand.
 
This is of course all quite relevant to commercial property, because without energy and minerals an awful lot of manufacturing won't get to happen.

Im not sure we have a

Im not sure we have a generation or so....I expect it to start in my life time, probably this decade, I find it really hard to think there will be an population expansion after 2030 anyway. 
I think we will see a Depression inside 5 years, that will cause a lot of hunger /  starvation around the world....it will take 5 years or so to reach the bottom and while we might get a new new deal unlike the GD there is no energy to support a recovery.
Consider the state of many nations....In 2007~8 I think it was noted that Pakistan was in dire financial straights and it was only saudi selling it cheap oil that stopped it imploding.....what has changed since then? nothing except some more millions have been born....and this is only one tinder spot...
regrads.

ha ha, please say you are

ha ha, please say you are joking about the free-marketists (who naturally deny that the financial crisis had anything to do with their favourite fantasy) being the most sane people here. Wally only cares when people suggest that Labour might be a credible alternative to National, I don't observe this has ever got much to do with government policy.

lol Here they go....... :)

lol Here they go....... :)

Mmm, the gummy idol and the

Mmm, the gummy idol and the lunatic fridge, Wolly. Moderate what we should ask? Moderately in favour of the national party government? Moderately in denial about the records of previous and current governments? Moderately likely to believe that history can be used as a guide to the future? 
No, in fact its moderately in accord with mark.s own opinion. Well I guess that makes it pretty clear how meaningful this characterisation is.
 

Actually I  dont like a lot

Actually I  dont like a lot of what Nation does. I especally do not like how the are erodinding indivindunal rights
 
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/04/11/spying-not-a-solution-to-bullying/
 
Not that I usally agree with the greens because they are just a different type of govt control
 
 
But I would rather have the sudo capitalist/socalist than the "I've got my cloak on uber socalists/minor communists" control.

Actually I don't care which

Actually I don't care which kind of partisan you consider yourself to be. The point is if you are a fringe lunatic, its really hard to justify what you are saying. If you are a centre lunatic, nobody really questions what you are saying, but of course that doesn't make it any less insane.
From what I have observed on this site, most people have a pretty severe case of derrangement, but some of them have kind of main stream justifications for their derrangement. A lot of what people think is hard 'scientific' economics is in fact completely bonkers.
There is a serious, mainstream economics paper which justifies a key assumption (the assumption is that you can expect everybody in the US to have aligned interests) with an argument going, 'Imagine America is like one big family...', uh, hello, crazy person alert. Somehow that made it past peer review in economics, well it made it past, just because its conclusions are main stream.
A typical nationalistic review of NZ government economic policy typically contradicts the record on NZ government borrowing, obviously conflating the effects of the global financial crisis with government spending. Obviously what ever point is being made about typical non-national economic policy is not valid if you can't get this correct, but that kind of partisan rubbish usually goes down pretty well around here.
 

nice one. regards

nice one.
regards

On one level or another mark

On one level or another mark .s. The Communists are gaining control......our new best freinds...our go to guys....they enjoy demonstrating the shortcomings of Crony Capitalism by means of exploitation......
 It's a laugh innit...?
I mean, who woulda fought it ...eh?

pay that one .. clever

pay that one .. clever

Who would have thought

Who would have thought it?
Karl Marx.
 

the play in word was on the

the play in word was on the ..Fought it ...Nick NZ.....subtle but hard to slip one past iconolast.

.

.

I thought this site was 

I thought this site was  about discussing commercial property as an alternative to residential property.
Instead it's turned into a soap box for every screw ball hell-bent on destroying the western world and all the great values it has given to civilisation over the past 1000 years.
At this rate we don't have to wait for El Qaeda extremists to do the job.
The howling mob are already at the gates .
 

Just so we are clear, do you

Just so we are clear, do you hate the anti-western views, or the fact that people are free to write them here.
 

BD - while a ship floats, it

BD - while a ship floats, it is sensible to stay with it. When the deck starts tilting, the cranially-equipped start thinking. When they are hollered-at by a man in a lifeboat, telling them to stay aboard, don't be surprised if they question the edict.

Yes Big Daddy : Here is an

Yes Big Daddy : Here is an opportunity to discuss commercial property as an investment , and the bloggers seem to have launched into personal attacks upon one another , instead .. ..
 
.. it's hardly surprising that Uncle Ollie seldom replies to our blogs , when this is the low standard of response to his articles .. ..
 
And it is high time that Kiwi investors got their minds off residential property as an investment , and into alternatives such as shares & commercial property ....
 
..... they do appear to have abandoned finance companies as an investment .. .. for the time being ..
 
Thanks Ollie , for the information .

"On the subject of Capital

"On the subject of Capital Gains Tax, I have yet to see a skerrick of evidence showing what a capital gains tax would achieve. Yes, it does exist in other countries but such taxes did absolutely nothing to stop runaway property booms (and busts) in the USA, Europe or Australia"
When are people going to learn - taxes and specifically CGT aren't in place to prevent booms and busts.  It is purely a form of revenue for the govt. and the idea is that it broadens the tax base so that labour isn't taxed so heavily.  It also ensures that everybody pays tax on all income.  Note, it is a capital gains tax, not a capital loss tax. If a capital loss is made no tax is paid, there is no tax credit.
It wouldn't be needed if existing tax law was actually enforced though.  Did your client who improved the run down block of shops pay tax on the profit when he on sold?  It doesn't sound like he is a commercial property "investor" more like a commercial property "trader".  Big difference.
I would've thought the astute investor would prefer their yields to increase over time, not reduce.
And by the way, a productive investment would be to build property not continually buy and sell the same property at constantly inflating prices.

I'll just chuck in my two

I'll just chuck in my two cents for the hell of it. Scarfie, you know I'm a housing bear, but I don't think investing in property is lecherous as you describe, simply because any investment in ANYTHING should have 2 things, capital and return. I don't believe that our economy gets better by trading houses by outbidding others with borrowed money or your propensity to borrow, but I wouldn't go as far as saying its lecherous. Commercial property is pretty solid and there are a lot of families that have done well from it all over the country.

Commercial property is the

Commercial property is the last thing to go near, is Olly looking to offload?
regards

Now you are starting to talk

Now you are starting to talk some very realistic analysis. Given the self centred nature of property investment, a contrarian view of Olly's advice might be rather sensible. Common sense that ee is going to line his own pocket first and bugger everyone else.

So far I think going

So far I think going contarian is based at looking at the quality of the two sides of the argument....if one is lacking depth and rigour apart from "I want it this way" or "common sense says its right" I just now I need to probably go the other way assuming the other view is a quality one of course.....hence who do I vote for?.....blargh......
regards

You need to decide what

You need to decide what business BigDaddy and Olly are in?
Is he peddling "property" or is he "peddling debt"

The Hollywood case study. In the mid 20th century Hollywood was dominated by the major studios. They went broke when television arrived, failing to realise they were in the entertainment business, not the blockbuster movie making business.

Excellent. You and Steven

Excellent. You and Steven have redeemed Interest.co.nz for the week, as they the most interesting and thought provoking comments so far. Comment of the week for me Iconoclast.

Wow !!!...what a cat fight

Wow !!!...what a cat fight eh....where's the love here ...!   aaaah come on...! group hug..eh..?
It's Friday...Yay.
 

When I was in the pub I heard a couple of plonkas saying that they wouldn't feel safe on an aircraft if they knew the pilot was a woman.

What a pair of sexist pigs.

I mean, it's not as if she'd have to reverse the bloody thing.

 

Yup , and there's no hand-bag

Yup , and there's no hand-bag or shoe shops in the sky ...
 
... so no risk of her suddenly applying the air-brakes without warning nor indicating .....

... so no risk of her

... so no risk of her suddenly applying the air-brakes without warning nor indicating .....
 
So does that mean she'd be putting the flaps down then, gummy?

I mean, it's not as if she'd

I mean, it's not as if she'd have to reverse the bloody thing.
 
But that's the problem. She might try!

I wonder if Bernard knows

I wonder if Bernard knows they all clock out at lunch on Friday at the mo.....tsk tsk.
Twitter is hardly a substitute.....guys.........Guys.....?
I'll be off then...!

........ not that I want to

........ not that I want to ruin everyones' fun , poking the borax at one another , but do we have any graphs showing long term trends in commercial property prices and yields , compared to those of residential property ? .....
 
( .... it's a weird change of events when the Gummster appears to be one of the few taking the content of a story seriously .... Chris-J excepted , of course .. good man ! .. )

that's what I'm saying

that's what I'm saying GBH...there gone...at the pub....out for the duration....I'll see what I can do...now you want some G- rafs right ...only I know this geezer with a loose llama ,an I figure he'll let it go for a pony. 

It's  P.O.E.T.S.  day , Count

It's  P.O.E.T.S.  day , Count ....... can't blame the gang for clearing orf , can we ......
 
...... why is it that the words " moron " or " moronic " have re-entered the hallowed realms of acceptable English , here at interest.co.nz ?
 
I prefer to see the kiddies get on well , in the playground ..... robust little tykes this morning , weren't they !

Here you go then GBH...seem

Here you go then GBH...seem to have lots of stuff on here to form a graph or two with.
http://unconditional.co.nz/nz-property-report-data/

.... cheers ! ...... I'll get

.... cheers ! ...... I'll get the 6 year old's crayons , and make a start on that . .. luvvly jubbly .. 

Yes, how ironic! Gummy. We

Yes, how ironic! Gummy. We are all present and accounted for tapping out  fresh material for your weekend reading pleasure and derision.

...... derison , moi ?

...... derison , moi ? ........ huh ! ... I won't dignify that with a response .... just not worth it ...

Yeah, better not. Might have

Yeah, better not. Might have to revoke your hall pass otherwise Gummy. Have a good weekend.
 

Must be safe....as

Must be safe....as houses.
Friend has been assured that the Existing Commercial Owner will lease back at very, very high rent for 3 years.
That is why it is worth all those millions. The return is quite astronomical.
When HE wants to retire and shut up shop in those 3 years... all they gotta do is find another high paying individual to take on the lease....Easy peasy.
No brainer...really.
Remind me what a Blue Chip deal was all about.

ChrisJ .. this is what u

ChrisJ .. this is what u said:
"Final point: is that youcompletely miss the point on the money creation issue.  Of course money supply is increased when a deposit is made at a bank and a corresponding loan is advanced, what scarfie and you other loons argue is that this is somehow free money or money out of thin air - oh what a load of nonsense!!!!!  No one can createfree money except central banks.
 
Tell me, if I lend you a dollar bill and you lend it to a friend does that create money out of thin air - free money from nothing that I can pocket like scarfie suggests?? - of course not.  There's two of us who can list the dollar as an asset, plus a third with the note, so essentially money was created but it's certainly not free money!!!  You, scarfie and his loons allege this is magical money that banks can produce ad infinitum, fraudulent money, to line their coffers ....what nonsense."

Tell me me how a deposit and a corresponding loan increases the money supply..????
If I deposit $100 and the bank lends out $100 the money supply is unchanged.
Tell how money supply increases..????
U are so wrong in what u say above... 
U are right that the banks can't produce adfinitum, fraudulent money, to line their coffers... and it is not at all the fanciful free money out of thin air stuff that the fringe proclaim....BUT... the fact is that the banking system can and does create money out of thin air.. in the form of credit.... but is constrained in many ways, that limit their ability to do so.
Not sure why u are a tad abusive... But .. what u state above is fundamentally wrong.
I always like to read what u have to say about real estate...but u are out of your depth on this...  :)

The trouble is a fella like

The trouble is a fella like ChrisJ has done some bulls**t degree that relies on rote learning rather than thinking. Because he got good marks in said bulls**t degree he is deluded into thinking he is smarter than he really is. See the trouble is that he wasn't actually required to think, just learn some bunkum jammed in front of him by some other clowin equally deficient in critical thinking ability. Don't worry Roelof, his abuse toward you isn't personal but just a deep seated frustration with his inability to defend being a leech. Actually I would say his abuse is generally directed at me, you just popped up at the wrong time.

scarfie I only got wound up

scarfie I only got wound up because some loonies keep banging on about things that are so patently false.
 
I suggest if you understood the basic principles rather than filling the blanks yourself you would realise that property investment and banking is no dark art or act of sorcery!!!!!
 
I am no leech and certainly no lecher (I hope you know the difference by now! (the second is actually very offensive)).

Ah yes, semantics isn't my

Ah yes, semantics isn't my strong point so a minor error. But it seems that you understood my intent was an allegation of dishonest or greed rather than lewd behaviour.

Roelof, I apologise for

Roelof, I apologise for getting a bit wound up over this but scarfie started the discussion by saying the looniest things about credit, banks "creating money" (in the Reserve Bank printing sense) and users of such credit being criminals.
 
To be clear though, you too completely misunderstand the basic principles.
 
If a bank accepts a deposit of $100 and then lends $100, technically money supply has increased by $100, ie total money supply is now $200:  $100 in the hands of the borrower and $100 in the chequeable deposit of the depositor. 
 
Money supply has been increased - yes. 
That money came out of thin air - NO!
 
For a bank to make a loan it must have the money first.
 
I'm starting to think that you loons can't be this stupid and you are only making these comments to wind me up!

Chris you are obviously

Chris you are obviously mistaken, the bank doesn't need to have all the money it owes before it can extend credit. It only needs sufficient money to meet its deposit holders (including deposits created via credit) day to day demands. As you stated for yourself, banks at all times owe more in deposits than they hold in reserves. This doesn't stop them in any way creating more credit, and there you go, they obviously don't need to have the money first or they would not be able to make any more loans until they got back to a positive deposit balance.
Are you seriously trying to claim this contradiction to be reality?
 
 
 
 
 

NtNZ are you seriously this

NtNZ are you seriously this stupid?????????
 
I pity you!!!!!!!!
 
A bank cannot lend money it does not have - even a ponzi scheme can't do that!!!!!
 
Reserves are not the amount of assets a bank has - they are the protection against bad loans etc.
 
If all loans were "good" then banks wouldn't need reserves at all, in which case if they got $1000 in deposits they could make $1000 in loans instead of only making $900 in loans as they might do if they are required 10% reserves.
 
I think the crux is that you loons are just super thicko's who don't understand the basics.
 
Goodbye!

Chris, are you one again

Chris, are you one again seriously trying to claim that banks have 100% of the necessary cash to pay out all their deposit holder at once? I thought we already cleared that up, they don't so of course the central bank doesn't create all the money, it creates a fraction of the total. Obviously commercial banks do fabricate the remainder of it which is called credit. In fact this is exactly what wikipedia says on the subject.
That is obviously the basics, I gather you don't understand this at all.
 
 

Good grief NtNZ, just because

Good grief NtNZ, just because a bank doesn't have the cash at hand (ie notes in a vault) doesn't mean they lend more than they take in deposits!!
 
If a bank has 10% in reserves it means they have lent 90% of their deposits.  Money was never printed, created (in the sense you mean), made up or free or whatever you want to call it!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Money supply was only increased via the provision of credit.
 
I now believe you to be the stupidest person alive!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trick Chris is that

The trick Chris is that depending on the reserve requirements the original deposit can be expanded thereby increasing the money supply.
For example if the reserve requirement is 10% then from an initial deposit of $100 the bank will keep $10 lending out $90.  The money supply is now $190.  The next bank that receives the $90 deposit will then lend $81 and keep $9.  The money supply is now $271.  This will continue until the total money supply equals $1000.  New money of $900 has been created.
Although no new money has been physically created in addition to the original $100 deposit new money is created through loans.
You are correct that money supply increased via the provision of credit.  However, that credit is still considered to be money, therefore money has been created out of thin air and I believe that was the gist of the argument in the first place.

Yes, this was the original

Yes, this was the original contention. In fact Chris said exactly this several comments up in the earlier thread, though he is now once again asserting the opposite. Anyway we should leave what ever missapprehensions Chris has about this for him to suggest, maybe he thinks only cash and virtual cash spends as money, its up to him to say as much.
If you are interested however, carrying on from there I would argue that the money multiplier model is a myth as well.
Either the central bank can always be relied on to create reserves, the actual multiplier is an extremely large multiple which is never reached, or these reserve requirements put no constraints on commercial banks in practise. Which ever it is, the money multiplier has been shown to be a poor model of banking in practise,
This fact is highlighted by many studies including this one. It also explains the existance of a  credit crunch from Steve Keens further analysis,
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr1421.pdf
 

Because I've argued the point

Because I've argued the point so many times the verbiage starts to confuse the issue.
 
The ORIGINAL point being made by scarfie and others was that retail bank's could essentially print their own profits, that they took a deposit of say $100 and from that could lend a $1000 out of thin air.
 
That is just absolute nonsense.
 
Retail banks always have less in loans advanced than in deposits (incl money market deposits) taken.
 
Those that believe that retail banks are just printing money (in the counterfeit sense that scarfie suggests) are completely stupid or insane.  Increasing money money supply via credit is not this kind of money printing.
 
Those that believe a bank accepts a $100 deposit and then can go out and lend $1000 are even more stupid!  To lend $1000 a bank would need to have received $1111 in deposits or funding (assuming a 10% reserve).  I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
 

Chris J - why, then, is it

Chris J - why, then, is it called Fractional Reserve Banking?
 
 

The fractional reserve refers

The fractional reserve refers to the fact that the retail bank only holds "cashable" reserves which are a fraction of total deposits (say 10%), the rest is loaned out to customers.
 
I find it hillarious (and also deeply concerning!) that so many don't understand this incredibly basic principle, but instead take their own interpretation of systems that they don't know anything about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
Chris, there is absolutely no secret to this. You genuinely can't apply basic mathematical formula. Using the formula from wikipedia (its a main stream source, no secret to what is happening).
"The money multiplier, m, is the inverse of the reserve requirement, R.
M = 1 / R"
So M = 1 / R = 1 / 0.1 = 10.
"This number is multiplied by the initial deposit to show the maximum amount of money it can be expanded to."
So with the deposit D, then total money T is
T = D x M = 100 x 10 = 1000 
isn't that my figure?
I hope I don't have to explain that 0.1 is 10% to you.
 

Well, Unlike YOU Chris we've

Well, Unlike YOU Chris we've all done a bit more reading clearly. Here's a suggestion JUST for starters. Read: The creature from Jekyl Island.
You might drop your repugnant know it all attitude and actually learn something about the real monetary system.
God forbid you might even learn some humility and THEN maybe that bitterness you harbor and chip on your shoulder due to your CHCH circumstances  might be relieved somewhat.
Either that or...........prozac

Conspiracy theorists can't

Conspiracy theorists can't justify the types of claims scarfie made in starting this thread.
 
If you believe that retail banks actually loan out some kind of fictitious multiplied money (not backed by actual deposits) and make their profits from this they you are a totally deluded loon.

Thumbs up if you are a

Thumbs up if you are a totally deluded loon (by Chris_J rather narrow definition).
I take this to mean holding a belief that the the wikipedia article on this subject is substantively wrong,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
 

If anybody said that, then

If anybody said that, then obviously you can quote either of us saying this. In fact you can't or you would have done so already. You should give up trying to produce a straw man version of what we said and then to argue against it. As I pointed out you have hillucinated most of the debate.
However we should not of course accuse you of too much hillucination, as pdk just pointed out, yes the fractional reserve system does mean that a bank receiving $100 deposit, which accurately predicts it will only need 10% reserves to keep its deposit holders (including borrowers) liquid, will be able to lend up to $1000 out. You are flat out wrong, not hillucinating what we mean, if you think fractional reserve means anything other than this.
As I have been pointing out repeateadly, if the banks needed $1111 or whatever the multiple is first then they could never lend more credit than has been created by the central bank, this is not even predicted by the money multiplier model.
Just to point out how bad your maths, and argument is, you just said that the banks would need to receive a total of $1111 in deposits before they could owe back a total of $2111 in deposits, at the end of a loan transaction. That makes their reserves just over 52.6%, so clearly they can lend a lot more with this many deposits. They can in fact lend $11110 still retaining a 10% reserve ratio. Obviously they are more likely to do this in a series of small loans, rather than one big one.
If you want to make it more clear, why don't you show, how much money the bank takes in in deposits (which will be the total reserves), how much it lends, and the total which deposit holders can withdraw after a loan is made.
Those that believe a bank accepts a $100 deposit and then can go out and lend $1000 are even more stupid!  To lend $1000 a bank would need to have received $1111 in deposits or funding (assuming a 10% reserve).
At this point we should really question if your self claimed cridentials are held by you. Please don't misconstrue this to mean I care what cridentials you have, I don't. But I would be appalled if I was an architecht to see such bibbling stupidity in a professional colleage.
 

I don't think there's much

I don't think there's much point continuing to explain it.  He doesn't want to get it.
Question is, is he part of the minority or the majority?  If everyone knew how it worked, would they act differently?  It's only the demand for debt (and the supervisors of the financial system being asleep at the wheel) that allows the banks to create it.

NtNZ: Firstly, here is

NtNZ: Firstly, here is scarfie's original comment that started this:

by scarfie | 19 Apr 12, 4:34pm

...
 
Most home owners are unaware that the money the bank has lent them is created from nothing, not matched by equivalent deposits. They then get charged interest on this free money, but the catch is new money has to be printed each year to cover the interest payments. Prices in aggregate have to rise each year no matter what. The scumbag property investor knows this, and also knows the bank will lend them this free, leveraged money and let them leverage it again to buy property. More free money and more interest to be printed, so who is on the losing end of this exchange? Anyone that doesn't own a house, which includes every young person entering the work force.

 

There are several comments to similar effect from yourself and others.
 
Secondly, please LEARN TO SPELL.  It's just embarassing.
 
Thirdly, you actually just don't understand the basic principles.
 
The well used example of $100 being deposited and turned into $1000 of lending with 10% reserves DOES NOT work the way you explain it.
 
You certainly don't need a degree in Mathematics (which I am obviously the only one here to have) to know this.  A 5th former/year 10 could easy tell you that you are completely and utterly WRONG.
 
The example goes like this: say there are 100 $1 coins issued by the Central Bank.  Someone deposits 100 coins at the bank, the bank keeps 10 coins as a reserve and lends 90 coins to another customer, he then spends those same coins and the shop keeper deposits them back at the back.  The bank keeps 9 coins as reserve and lends out 81 to another customer who then spends them at another store and the next storekeeper deposits them at the bank, the bank keeps 10% as a reserve and lends out the 90% to another customer and so forth.
 
Eventually despite only 100 coins ($100) being in circulation the bank could have theoretically taken $1000 in deposits (if all the money came back to the bank each time and any decimal of the coins were available).  This is the idea of fractional reserve banking - it has nothing to do with retail banks just "creating money" which they could earn seigniorage on.
 
To make $1000 in loans a retail bank a bank needs deposits to cover this plus deposits to cover the 10% reserves.
 
It's simple school cert maths: 
Maximium Lending (L) + Reserve Requirements (R) = Total Deposits (D)
But:
Reserve Requirements = 10% of Total Deposits
ie:         R= 0.1*D
So:       L+0.1*D=D
Hence: L=0.9*D
Thus:   D=L/0.9
or in our case the required deposits are $1000/0.9=$1111
 
NtNZ: your calculations show you do not understand the basics at all and are clearly as loony as Ron Paul (who was just on CNBC and is completely cockoo!).
 
Note that by deposits I mean total customer deposits, money market deposits (debt issuances) and amounts due to other banks.

Yes, in case you were

Yes, in case you were wondering Scarfies comment is in fact correct, at least the parts you highlighted, I disagree with some of his conclusions drawn from this. Good to see its only that you honestly don't understand rather than you dishonestly do.
It will be more than obvious to the general readership that you don't have the foggiest idea. I am quite certain that a class of school cert maths students could work out the correct formula (as given by wikipedia) for the reserve ratio. Its really not difficult.
Since I am encouraging you to honestly own to your foolishness, I should mention a relatively insignificant error I just noticed of myself.
With a $100 deposit, and 10% reserves the actual figure which the bank can lend out is $900, not $1000. Of course at the limit the bank has a total deposit base of $1000, and you need to subtract the bank owing $100 for the initial deposit. I don't think this substantively changes the point which is being disputed at all. I am not sure who introduced this error, I didn't bother to check. It was most likely me. You will notice that of course this complies with the formula you gave,
L + R = D = 1000 = 100 + 900
though for some reason you have miss-applied the formula to draw an invalid conclusion. Nothing about this formula means R is 10% of D, as you can see for yourself in the example you gave it is not 10% of D at all, meaning the bank could increase L further and be more profitable. I am sure you can work out your mistake from that. 

NtNZ you just don't

NtNZ you just don't understand do you!
 
It is NOT with a $100 deposit that a bank can lend $900.
 
IT IS that with $100 of Central Bank issued currency in circulation a retail bank can lend $900!
 
The bank (to have a 10% reserve) MUST have deposits (which can of course debt issuances by the bank (money market deposits) etc but for this example just call them deposits) which 10/9 times the lending:  so for $900 of lending the bank MUST HAVE $1000 of deposits, for $1000 of lending the bank must have $1111 as I mention above.

It's way worse than you think

It's way worse than you think Chris J. NZ banks like their Australian and British counterparts have zero reserve requirements for deposits. Instead they have capital requirements under the Basel agreements with Tier 1 being the most important. They have to keep about 6-7% I think it is in Tier 1 capital - "cash equivalent" assets like bonds and mortgage backed securities that can readily (absent a crisis of course) be converted into cash. But on top of this they all hold substantial amounts in their Reserve Bank accounts to cover normal day to day operations through the payments system. If they have a short term liquidity problem like during the GFC they can borrow from the Reserve Bank.
 
They can and do create new money in the form of interest bearing credit, without deposits, as long as they are "prudent". The bonds they sell are to meet their capital requirements not any reserve requirements for there are none. NZ like other countries before deregulation used to have about a 25% deposit reserve requirement (ie only 4:1 leverage. Now its estimated by some at 30:1). Our big banks have never had a 100% reserve system lending only the money they receive as deposits. Other non bank  financial institutions, including ironically finance companies work the way you think banks do. But to make a good profit they have to take outsized risks.

This has progressed a long

This has progressed a long way from the original widely incorrect arguments put forward by scarfie and others.
 
Obviously I entirely agree that retail banks increase money supply through fractional reserve banking (ie they create money).  What I have repeatedly stated is that this "created" money is not "printed" money (money from thin air that simply is free profit for the bank) as scarfie and others originally stated and have argued it was.  Those statements are just plain loony.
 
The hypothetical bank example above with a 10% reserve requirement demonstrates that having a low fractional reserve requirement (whether it be 10%, 1% or zero) DOES NOT create credit that is not backed by deposits (or other funding).  The point that scarfie and NtNZ made repeatedly is that fractional reserve banking created this free money which is not backed by funding or deposits.  This is just a loony, misunderstanding of how the system works.
 
Now in our hypothetical case above, those reserve requirements offer no protection for customers with deposits as the bank has no capital requirements (keeping it simple for NtNZ - if even $10 of that $1000 in loans defaults and can not be recovered then the bank only has $990 plus its $111 reserve to repay $1111 in deposits - which of course leaves it $10 short!)
 
Capital requirements of course limit the amount of lending the bank can do and protect depositors.
 
ALL lending is backed by a deposit or funding or capital (the bank's balance sheets are not in negative equity unless they have lost more in bad loans than they had in capital requirements!!).
 
wtf you confuse 100% reserve banking.  It has NOTHING to do with the total amount of deposits/funding/capital being held to back loans.
 
100% reserve banking just means that the funds of all call accounts are kept in cashable liquid assets.  For a bank to lend money they would have to be acting only as an intermediary matching the amount of funds put in term investments for customers (ie in term deposits etc).   If a NZ bank hypothetically engaged in 100% reserve banking then they couldn't pay any interest on call deposits which would force more money into the term investments which could in theorey be loaned against which would in turn still "create" money (in the increasing money supply sense) but only M3 not M1. Of course a pure 100% reserve banking institution would just be putting all of the money in a vault and no lending would occur which would simply make banks money holders only! 
 
Bank's use of the Reserve Bank to fund lending on some occasions also does not mean the money has come from thin air.  ALL bank lending has a source and it that case it is the Reserve Bank.
 
It was a simple point that I was trying to make originally
- Banks DO NOT simply materialise money from air (which they profit from in the "printing" sense)
- All bank lending is backed by a deposit or funding or capital and that fractional reserve banking doesn't change the fact that any money lent out came from somewhere (customer deposits, money market funding, or their capital).
 
To suggest that banks make up money in the sense previously implied is just plain LOONY.
 
 
 

Obviously I entirely agree

Obviously I entirely agree that retail banks increase money supply through fractional reserve banking (ie they create money).  What I have repeatedly stated is that this "created" money is not "printed" money (money from thin air that simply is free profit for the bank) as scarfie and others originally stated and have argued it was.  
It would be looney to believe that banks can lend themself profits, but nobody except for Chris actually said that. To add to that Chris now thinks 100% reserves and fractional reserves are substantively the same thing,
If a NZ bank hypothetically engaged in 100% reserve banking then they couldn't pay any interest on call deposits which would force more money into the term investments which could in theorey be loaned against which would in turn still "create" money (in the increasing money supply sense) but only M3 not M1.
and now Chris is disagreeing with him self again,
It was a simple point that I was trying to make originally
- Banks DO NOT simply materialise money from air (which they profit from in the "printing" sense)
- All bank lending is backed by a deposit or funding or capital and that fractional reserve banking doesn't change the fact that any money lent out came from somewhere (customer deposits, money market funding, or their capital).

Because he also said,
Yes is a bank extends credit to a customer they create a deposit and a corresponding loan at the stroke of a keyboard (and the loan will earn the bank interest while the deposit might not earn the customer the same interest)
 

Chris_J you just don't get it

Chris_J you just don't get it do you.
Central Bank issued currency is the physical dollars and coins classed as legal tender and is the initial deposit of $100.
Fractional reserve banking allows the banks to expand the original $100 by an additional $900 without the Central Bank needing to physically print additional notes and coins.
The additional $900 created out of thin air is still MONEY.
Anyone (other than Chris_J) correct me if my explanation is oversimplified.

Its worse because there's not

Its worse because there's not even a 10% reserve anymore. The bank doesn't even need the $100 deposit to create the other $900 - it just creates $1000 as long as it is a "prudent" loan and it has enough Tier 1 capital it can do this as much as it likes. The Reserve Bank creates the physical money, notes and coin, but this is only 3-4% of the total "money" in circulation and is purely there to grease the payment system. The rest of the money started on a keyboard somewhere and has interest attached.

There seems to be conspiracy

There seems to be conspiracy theorists all over this topic.
 
Yes is a bank extends credit to a customer they create a deposit and a corresponding loan at the stroke of a keyboard (and the loan will earn the bank interest while the deposit might not earn the customer the same interest), BUT as soon as the customer withdraws funds then the account, the total amount of deposits the bank has decreases and the total amount of loans the bank has remains the same; THIS MEANS that for the bank, it's assets are reduced (by the amount of cash they paid on the withdrawal) and their libilities have reduced by the same amount (the amount that total deposits reduced by), but more of their assets are now loan advances than cash at hand or other tier 1 capital so there the capital ratio is reduced (a reserve requirement would have been reduced in a similar way - less cash reserves than immediately before the loan was created).  If either the capital requirement or the reserve requirement (where there is one) must be kept the same, therefore credit can not endlessly be created in this way.
 
Although continuous changes in customer accounts may mean that a deposit does not necessarily have to physically occur prior to a loan being made - OVERALL every loan is back by funding of some sort (customer deposit, money market deposit, debt issuance, capital, or even central bank funding etc).
 
To argue otherwise and to use emotive terms such as fraudulent or phony money (as is implied and stated in earlier comments) is being disingenuous.

Yep, certainly come a long

Yep, certainly come a long way. Here is the quote of Scarfie you used, (just as far as I agree with Scarfie)
"Most home owners are unaware that the money the bank has lent them is created from nothing, not matched by equivalent deposits. They then get charged interest on this free money"
and now to quote Chris,
"Yes is a bank extends credit to a customer they create a deposit and a corresponding loan at the stroke of a keyboard (and the loan will earn the bank interest while the deposit might not earn the customer the same interest)"
Dispute resolved, Chris_J has been arguing a nonsense this whole time. Note that Chris has made many contradictary statements to this earlier on. To quote Chris again,
"If a bank accepts a deposit of $100 and then lends $100, technically money supply has increased by $100, ie total money supply is now $200:  $100 in the hands of the borrower and $100 in the chequeable deposit of the depositor. 
 
Money supply has been increased - yes. 
That money came out of thin air - NO!
 
For a bank to make a loan it must have the money first."

 

NtNZ you continue to muddle

NtNZ you continue to muddle things up!
 
The argument that you and scarfie have made is that banks make money out of thin air and that they profit directly from the actually printing of the money.
 
Overall the bank must have money first before it can lend it.  You simply misunderstand (as usual) that a bank can create loans without having to actually take in a specific deposit simply because of the scale of lending (ie increasing advances by $10m on a $50b loan book makes a neglible change to ratio requirements NB the $10m comes from the banks capital/cash reserve not out of thin air) however this can't happen endlessly, all loans need to be supported by deposits etc, eg to loan a further $1b on a $50b loan book either new deposits or other funding would be required.
 
My ENTIRE argument has been that you don't actually understand that banks don't just create money (in the out of thin air money printing sense) and that all lending is (overall) backed by deposits or other funding.
 
I have pointed out exactly why I your view is RUBBISH.
 
You seem to believe that banks can just create money then lend it out without having to source the funding: tell me that's not exactly what you believe!

The argument that you and

The argument that you and scarfie have made is that banks make money out of thin air and that they profit directly from the actually printing of the money.
Yep, thats exactly what even wikipedia says about this issue, except obviously they profit from lending then money, not the actual act of fabricating it itself.
"The relending model begins when an initial $100 deposit of central bank money is made into Bank A. Bank A takes 20 percent of it, or $20, and sets it aside as reserves, and then loans out the remaining 80 percent, or $80. At this point, the money supply actually totals $180, not $100, because the bank has loaned out $80 of the central bank money, kept $20 of central bank money in reserve (not part of the money supply), and substituted a newly created $100 IOU claim for the depositor that acts equivalently to and can be implicitly redeemed for central bank money (the depositor can transfer it to another account, write a check on it, demand his cash back, etc.)."
Shortly after this the same article explains why you are so confused Chris,
"From a depositor's perspective, commercial bank money is equivalent to central bank money – it is impossible to tell the two forms of money apart unless a bank run occurs (at which time everyone wants central bank money)."
You appear to think that actual money (including, it should be pointed out, bank deposits) backs all lending because deposits are fabricated at the same time, and to the same amount as the credit extended. In other words you are confused by how the system works, precisely as wikipedia points out, because you can't tell central bank money from commercial bank money and think they are the same.
Overall the bank must have money first before it can lend it.
In what possible sense is that true? As you said they find funding after extending credit, almost always in practise. Yes, they need the $80 cash in the wikipedia example before they can fabricate $80 more loans, but this is not relevant, because as the same wikipedia article says the money supply now totals $180 and has obviously expanded through the lending actions of this commercial bank. As has been repeateadly pointed out given only, $100 of reserves the commercial banking system can then fabricate a further up to $400 in additional loans, even with an extremely strict 20% reserve requirement. Even that is 4/5ths of the money supply fabricated out of nothing, and without more deposits (or reserves) being necessary.
Also I go further, and actually accept the obvious implications of how lending transactions and regulations work in practise,
"Though not a mainstream economic belief, a number of central bankers, monetary economists, and text books, have said that banks create money by 'extending credit', where banks obligate themselves to borrowers, and then later manage whatever liabilities this creates for them, where if the central bank targets interest rates, it must supply base money on demand to meet the banks reserve requirements, after the banks have begun the lending process and that rather than deposits leading to loans, causality is reversed, and loans lead to deposits."
Clearly I am not alone, far from it. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your own position, yet to see any at all.
You are disputing the straight forward, main stream, statements in wikipedia, it is unbelieveable, but there you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
 

My goodness NtNZ!!!!!   You

My goodness NtNZ!!!!!
 
You are even more stupid than I thought.
 
You are using information from your misunderstanding of articles written on wikipedia!!!!!
 
You have also altered the argument (in part) to arguing my point as well and haven't even noticed!!!
 
The original argument by scarfie was that banks profit from credit creation in fractional reserve banking (in the money printing sense).  You clearly agree this is untrue.
 
The fact is that banks don't actually benefit as greatly as the Austrians or others would have you believe.  If fractional reserve banking didn't exist, no banks could lend any money they had in call accounts therefore the interest rate would be zero and fees would have to be charged on those accounts.  This would in turn mean that no one would leave money in call accounts and would instead place their money with intermediaries as investments (which could then be on lent).  This would essentially have the same effect as the current situation with an increase in M3 money rather than M1 money.
 
But the crux of what you fail to understand is that in your geometric sum where money supply has increased using a sole $100 of currency that say with 20% reserves (as you use above), $500 of DEPOSITS were made and only $400 of lending.  Those deposits never disappeared - THERE WAS NEVER $400 OF LENDING WITH JUST $100 OF DEPOSITS (as you suggest endlessly) - how do you not understand that LENDING IS ALWAYS LESS THAN FUNDING.
 
This is the argument!!!!!  How can you be so stupid??????
 

Chrisj..and Nic nz... from

Chrisj..and Nic nz...
from what I can see the only thing u disagree about is which comes first..the loan ( credit ) or the deposit.
deposit/loan or loan/deposit ... for the sake of the argument..  does it really matter..???
either way.. money supply expands by 6-15% in a year. ...  For it to expand something has to be created which was not there before.
someone has to be a beneficiary of that "creation"...  ( no matter how large or little)
If M3 grows by $10 billion in a yr... someone is making a profit from it... ( If it is the private banking sector that creates credit... then one can assume they benefit from it )
This whole argument is about to what degree the banks profit from the process.
Scarfie says...  the banks gorge themselves with profit... like a golden goose
ChrisJ says....   yes the banks profit...  but not by so much at all.... hardly at all
 
 

Thanks Roelof, The main

Thanks Roelof,
The main disagreement with NtNZ is that it appears NtNZ believes loans are advanced by banks without the need to pay for them with anything real.
 
All lending requires a deposit or similar to pay for it.
 
Only the central bank can create money from thin air!

This would essentially have

This would essentially have the same effect as the current situation with an increase in M3 money rather than M1 money.
We can see you are the one who is confused from just this, M3 money counts include bank credit today. Loans of commercial bank credit expands M3, and in no way expand M1 today.
"The different forms of money in government money supply statistics arise from the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Whenever a bank gives out a loan in a fractional-reserve banking system, a new sum of money is created. This new type of money is what makes up the non-M0 components in the M1-M3 statistics. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
 

You don't know what you're on

You don't know what you're on about.  M1 incl deposits in chequeable accounts.  M3 incl money in investments at M3 institutions.
 
You are just plain wrong.
 

Chrisj... I finally get where

Chrisj... I finally get where u are coming from... 
What u describe applies to traditional fractional reserve banking.
Nz does not have a fractional reserve system... We have capital adequecy ratios and prudential policy.
My understanding is that Banks Can create credit without having the corresponding deposits... In the end thou...  they do have to honour that credit thru the payments system..at which point they either have to borrow money form the Rserve Bank, from the interbank mkt, use their own capital...or use deposits.
the way the system works... is that it is the demand for credit that determines how much money supply grows by..  The banks do not ad hoc ...create credit at will...like some great money making machine... the banks themselves are constrained by the need to be prudent in order to maintain liquidity and be solvent.
Having said that ...  they do create credit and they get paid interest on it... and even thou they pay interest on deposits...  they have a very unique business that can be really profitable.
trouble with this subject is that there is hardly anyone that has a complete, and clear, understanding of it ( including u and I ).
What I have learnt has come from emailing the Reserve bank directly as much as from stuff on the internet.... ( and as u can see.. I don't know it all )
U are right...thou.. about the nonsence of the conspiricy theories that suggest that banks can simply create unlimited amounts of money out of thin air.
having said that....  as a figure of speech...  one can say that the credit they do create is essentially 'out of thin air".. ..  but there are real constraints on how much they can do this.
Call me a moron...   :)
 

While this change in

While this change in regulations is true, the money multiplier has always been a bit of a myth anyway. It has not really ever been a convincing model. If you look closely Chris is some how claiming the fractional reserve banking doesn't mean that banks only keep a fraction of central bank money as reserves, and they some how end up with full reserves of central bank money. I have yet to see him suggest how this happens, and it doesn't happen.
Only Chris said anything about unlimited amounts of money being created, though. He hillucinated most of the wild allegations he claims to be ranting about. It is my belief that the most significant constraint banks face is the ability to find credit worthy borrowers.
 

NtNZ: You've misspelt the

NtNZ: You've misspelt the same word a dozen times please open a dictionary.

So, we know that the original

So, we know that the original $100 deposited is what we call 'central bank money', and the $900 loaned by the retail bank is credit. So if you are going to explain why there are now $1000 in deposits floating around (which incidentally the reserve bank acknowledges as money, they are counted in the M3 statistics) you should actually bring an argument.
At what stage in this process does the reserve bank issue $900 of 'central bank money'. Or use your own figures (but this time make sure you end up with the minimum 10% in reserves, just to prove your point to the maximum).
I suggest that the $100 is the only 'central bank money' involved in this example, and also constitutes the only form of reserves, e.g central bank money is bank reserves they are exactly the same thing.
 

You know some people do find

You know some people do find it offensive to claim you have qualifications which you don't have. I seriously hope you are not doing this in any way, I hope you are just having a moment of foolishness.
"The example goes like this: say there are 100 $1 coins issued by the Central Bank.  Someone deposits 100 coins at the bank, the bank keeps 10 coins as a reserve and lends 90 coins to another customer, he then spends those same coins and the shop keeper deposits them back at the back.  The bank keeps 9 coins as reserve and lends out 81 to another customer who then spends them at another store and the next storekeeper deposits them at the bank, the bank keeps 10% as a reserve and lends out the 90% to another customer and so forth."
Lets have a maths lesson then. We will define the function which calculates the amount deposited (loaned by the public) to the bank at the nth iteration L(n), the total deposits which are owed by the bank after the nth iteration D(n) and the excess reserve ratio r=9/10 of the amount last deposited. Also we define the initial conditions L(0) = 100 and D(0)=100, and assume at each step the maximum possible is loaned out.
L(n) is a function of the excess reserves, the amount leant, spent and most recently deposited again with the bank,
L(0) = 100*(9/10)^0 = 100
L(1) = 100*(9/10)^1 = 90
L(2) = 100*(9/10)^2 = 81
L(3) = 100*(9/10)^3 = 72.9
...
L(n) = L(0)*r^n = 100*(9/10)^n
Obviously D(n) is the sum of deposits made at the bank,
D(0) = L(0) = 100
D(1) = L(0) + L(1) = 100 + 90
D(2) = L(0) + L(1) + L(2) = 100 + 90 + 81
D(3) = L(0) + L(1) + L(2) + L(3) = 100 + 90 + 81 + 72.9
...
D(n) = L(0) + L(1) + L(2) + L(3) + ... + L(n)
So actually we want to find the limit to the sum D(n) as n goes to infinity, how are we suppost to tackle that?
D(n) = L(0) + L(1) + L(2) + L(3) + ... + L(n)
         = L(0) + L(0)*r + L(0)*r^2 + L(0)*r^3 + ... + L(0)*r^n
So: r * D(n) = r * (L(0) + L(0)*r + L(0)*r^2 + L(0)*r^3 + ... + L(0)*r^n)
                     = L(0)*r + L(0)*r^2 + L(0)*r^3 + L(0)*r^4 + ... + L(0)*r^n + L(0)*r^(n+1)
So: D(n) - r * D(n)  = L(0) - L(0) * r^(n+1)               (the other terms cancel)
So: D(n) * (1 - r) = L(0) * (1 - r^(n+1))                     (factorise both sides)
So: D(n) = L(0) * (1 - r^(n+1)) / (1-r)                       (divide through by (1 - r))
and now taking the limit as n goes to infinity,
D(infinity) = L(0) * (1 - r^(infinity) / (1 - r) = L(0) * (1 - 0) / (1 - r)
                  = L(0) / (1-r)         (see above, as n+1 approaches infinity r^n approaches zero)
                  = 100 / (1 - 0.9) = 100 / 0.1 = 1000
which is perfectly obvious without solving the geometric series. But now you have learned something. Yay!
 

Wow you can do 5th form

Wow you can do 5th form maths!
 
So you totally agree with what I stated earlier then!!!!!
 
$100 of CURRENCY can lead to a theoretical maximum of $1000 of deposits.
 
(note that you don't have to prove the formula for a geometric sum (most 14 year olds can do this), it can be taken that the sum from n=0 to infinity of r^n  tends to 1/(1-r) if IrI<1.)
 
And as I said earlier a $1000 of lending requires $1111 of deposits.
 
This isn't exactly university level mathematics.  (No PDEs, no Hilbert Spaces, not even an eigenvalue to calculate (100 level stuff there)).  I can assure you that I am reasonably competent in mathematics (I did get 1st in NZ in the Australian Maths Competition in 6th Form you can check the published prize list hard copy only though - pre interweb days!).
 
All very basic, but you continue to confuse the amount of currency in circulation required to create credit and the amount of deposits the bank has.
 
 
 

Of course, we could all look

Of course, we could all look up the standard formula for solving geometric series, or you could just have accepted the wikipedia formula for the money multiplier to begin with, I decided not to do this obviously because you didn't accept the formula to begin with.
So now you don't actually have a degree in mathematics? You were only hinting at having it before? As I said, I don't actually care, because its obvious you have been miss-applying the formula even if you are qualified to apply them. In fact your qualifications (or my own) are not relevant, only the logic of the argument, and on your side this is lacking.
Actually I would like to see you quote yourself saying that $100 currency leads to $1000 deposits in circulation. The only person I thought brought this fact up was myself, quoting Murray N. Rothbard. Obviously deposits are money, so you just lost the debate there.
 

NtNZ you're all over the

NtNZ you're all over the place, which clearly substantiates earlier criticism!
 
What are you on about?  I never had any argument that bank lending didn't increase money supply.   Are you disappointed that I wasn't impressed with your high school mathematics??
 
I definitely have a degree in Mathematics (and Physics) I also did 200 level Chemistry (which I mentioned earlier) amongst other things all with a 10.8 GPA but that is all unnecessary for this level of discussion.  I also worked as an Investment Analyst for a couple of years (which I've also mentioned before).
 
Clearly you haven't won any debate.  I'm not even sure you know what your arguing! Do you?

You accuse me of being all

You accuse me of being all over the place?
I never had any argument that bank lending didn't increase money supply.
Really, because thats exactly what you claim here.
My ENTIRE argument has been that you don't actually understand that banks don't just create money (in the out of thin air money printing sense) and that all lending is (overall) backed by deposits or other funding.
Obviously the statement about deposits is not relevant, because these are fabricated to exactly the same amount and at exactly the same time as credit is extended. In fact there is a deposit backing all the lending immediately once the bank lends the money, but before the loan has been spent. The bank is in no way short of funding at this moment according to their accounts at this moment.
I am not here to impress you, buy in fact to impress apon you the fact that I have won the debate many, many times over.
 
 
 
 

Saying something a hundred

Saying something a hundred times doesn't make it true.
 
If credit is advanced to a customer and a loan made (with the funds deposited in their call account) then AT THAT MOMENT  yes the credit has been matched by the deposit.  BUT AS SOON as the customer WITHDRAWS the funds the banks deposits have reduced - the customer walked out of the bank with either a cheque or cash in their pocket - this is from the bank's capital therefore to maintain capital or reserve requirements the bank either needs to reduce lending to another customer or get more deposits or more capital funding or wholesale funding.
 
THE MONEY DID NOT COME FROM THIN AIR.
 
ALL LENDING IS ULTIMATELY BACKED BY A DEPOSIT OR OTHER FUNDING
 
You certainly aren't able to win an argument because you are such a moronic fool you don't know what you are arguing!!!!!!

Chris - Never bother debating

Chris - Never bother debating money stuff with a person who at any time uses the term "out of thin air".  Ever. 

.... 'ere 'ere ....... well

.... 'ere 'ere ....... well said !

Sage advice, I concur. Though

Sage advice, I concur.
Though I did take the time to clarify that 'thin air' should be taken to mean 'accounting entries'.
 

Chrisj said..." If a bank

Chrisj said..." If a bank accepts a deposit of $100 and then lends $100, technically money supply has increased by $100, ie total money supply is now $200:  $100 in the hands of the borrower and $100 in the chequeable deposit of the depositor. "...... 
This is incorrect...
How does that increase money supply..???  Even as a balance sheet entry one is an assett and one is a liability...  there is no net increase..
" For a bank to make a loan it must have the money first."....  
This is incorrect as well.
Another way to percieve credit money ( the money that banks create ) is to call it "IOU" money.
when a bank makes a loan ( and also when it takes a deposit) it simply writes an "IOU" on a piece of paper.... and then when it needs to..thru the reserve bank payment system..it honours those IOU's
To use the example that Chris used about a friend lending another friend $100. If, instead of handing over the $100... the friend wrote out an "IOU" for $100..  (and because of his high standing in the community..that IOU is used...and considered to be "as good as money"....  then the money supply has increased)
 
 
 

 

 
 

Look up a definition of money

Look up a definition of money supply and find out you are a moron for yourself!

Chris, no need to be

Chris, no need to be snarky.
When you look into it the term 'money supply' is actually a far harder concept to define than on first appearances.
For a start what we term 'money' is really fiduciary media. The money supply expands and contracts as new loans are made, and some loans are repaid.

Ok, so Chris you concede the

Ok, so Chris you concede the first point, banks (all banks) do in fact create money from thin air. We can call it credit, that is an acceptable term, but it looks like money and it spends like money, and so its money.
Now, I may be raving, but you are hilucinating, you claim I said a number of things which I palpably never said. So we are not going to debate your hilucinations, we are going to debate the contention that reserves place a constraint on bank lending, or not. The first of the hilucinations being can banks create unlimited amounts of credit and then claim a profit from it? No obviously not, nobody (except you) claimed anything about that, there is an obvious constraint, some credit worthy borrower must want to borrow the money, that at least is a constraint on the amount of credit and I would claim the most restrictive one.
You claim that I am miss quoting Steve Keen? In fact I am not, here is a quote Steve chooses to explain his position, its actually a quote of Basil Moore. The link explains pretty clearly what he is saying and represents my point of view on this exactly.
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later"
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/
This also quite clearly answers your question. The funny thing is the positive money group, who you so readily deride (because they appear a little left wing), are promoting a system of banking which functions in exactly the way you believe banking functions today.
In fact its apparant that all of the other people jumping in to support you are a lot brighter than yourself, because they quickly gave up when faced with some actual evidence. It seems likely they realised which side of the debate they were on at this point.
Also please keep in mind you are obviously a lot more uncomfortable with the facts, with the reality of how the system functions than I am. Thats why you refuse to accept that banking could possibly function in this way.
Obviously you know exactly what I mean when I say seigniorage, but if you want to play word games, why don't you explain exactly how much is paid for the privilege to 'multiply a deposit', as we both know the figure is zero. Of course this is irrelevant even if the figure is greater than zero, nobody except you has claimed this could be a constraint. The fact this is totally irrelelvant is highlighted by the fact you said central banks can create money from thin air, and they pay seigniorage profits to the government.
 
 

I am really starting to enjoy

I am really starting to enjoy this, but same some for the next round Nic. There will be one, I promise :-)

Oh dear.   Spell something

Oh dear.
 
Spell something wrong once and I may think it's a typo, twice and well hmmmm, three times and you KNOW what I'm thinking!!
 
NtNZ you completely miss the original lunacy suggested by scarfie.
 
Money is not made out of thin air by retail banks.
 
Credit increases money supply - yes I have always said this, however an increase in money supply does not mean that money is being printed or made out of thin air.  Every loan is backed by a deposit or money market funding.
 
You are a total loon if you believe that a bank can multiply it's deposits!!!!  Every dollar they lend out has a source, there is no free money!!!!
 
Go look at one of our retail banks GDS and tell me where this free money is!!!!!
 
Looking at ASB's 2008 GDS (which was in front of me), $52b in loans to customers, $57b in deposits (which includes $30b customer deposits and the rest money market and other bank deposits).  How exactly is this multiplying a deposit??????
 
You are all silly loons arguing points that you know nothing about.
 
I bet the reply will be an illogical rant and a load of rubbish with links to articles you misinterpret to be something they are not.
 
More than enough was said two days ago.
 
That is the end.
 
Keep raving on the street corner if you wish.