Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Dylan16807 161 days ago
This conversation was not about banks when the comparison came up, and when I talk about long term value I'm not talking about bank reserves. (And even if you argue a stablecoin is like a bank, it's one with an utterly massive reserve ratio.)

If you're worried about short term value then you can use shorter term bonds if you want, whatever. It doesn't make a difference to the reason I brought it up in the first place, because either option is more stable than gold.
1 comments
eru 161 days ago
What do you mean by long term value? The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value.

No one is talking about bank reserves. I'm talking about assets.

link
Dylan16807 161 days ago
> What do you mean by long term value? The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value.

In situations where we still care about dollars, so no hyperinflation or total collapse of the United States, the current market value of a Treasury bond can't actually vary that much. And the amount it can reasonably vary is mostly proportional to how many years are left in the bond.

By the time your bonds reach maturity, you always have more dollars than you started with. Long term you always profit. And you get to choose what length of bonds you buy, so if you want to you can guarantee your dollars increase in the medium or short term on top of the long term.

> No one is talking about bank reserves. I'm talking about assets.

I'm saying you're too worried about "withdrawal requests" a normal bank would see.

link
eru 160 days ago
> In situations where we still care about dollars, so no hyperinflation or total collapse of the United States, the current market value of a Treasury bond can't actually vary that much. And the amount it can reasonably vary is mostly proportional to how many years are left in the bond.

Well, it was enough variance to bring Silicon Valley Bank down.

> By the time your bonds reach maturity, you always have more dollars than you started with. Long term you always profit.

I'd be very happy to have you as my investor in some long term bonds---with terrible below-market-but-barely-positive interest rates.

> I'm saying you're too worried about "withdrawal requests" a normal bank would see.

Silicon Valley Bank saw massive withdrawals, because their liabilities exceeded their assets.

link
Dylan16807 160 days ago
Again, worrying about the long term value is an entirely different problem from worrying about your assets temporarily shrinking 10%. I was talking about the former. SVB, an example of the latter, does not affect my argument. And again, SVB could have used shorter term bonds to avoid that problem.

> I'd be very happy to have you as my investor in some long term bonds---with terrible below-market-but-barely-positive interest rates.

Very funny. Look, that's one feature of Treasury bonds, not the only feature. They get pretty good yields compared to gold in the long term, and you can trust them a lot.

link
littlestymaar 161 days ago
> The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value.

It's not. The EMH has been empirically disproven in the 80s.

link
eru 160 days ago
Could you please link me to the evidence? Which version of the EMH has been disproven?

EMH comes in multiple different strengths. The strongest version would be something comical like 'market prices are omniscient and perfectly predict future prices'. That's almost certainly wrong. Very weak versions are something like 'Don't bother actively trading on the news as a retail investor, because by the time you've heard them, the folks over at Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds and their computers will have traded on them a million times over already', and these are almost certainly true. (But even somewhat stronger versions are probably true.)

link
littlestymaar 160 days ago
See Bob Schiller's work (for which he received the econ Nobel prize in 2013).

The “weak version of EMH” has nothing to do with markets being “efficient”, it's a property of random markets. Assimilating the two just Fama's motte-and-bailey fallacy.

link
eru 160 days ago
When you say 'random' you probably mean that market prices are a Martingale? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(probability_theory...

That's very, very related to being efficient.

> Assimilating the two just Fama's motte-and-bailey fallacy.

No, not at all.

link
littlestymaar 160 days ago
> That's very, very related to being efficient.

“No, not at all”.

link