Banking

Certain industries—e.g., adult websites, guns-and-ammo, gaming, bail bonds, and lawyers (!)—tend to have higher chargeback rates. These industries are often served by a subset of banks that specialize in high-risk payment processing. Crypto companies also fall into that category of having high chargeback rates, but the chargeback risk posed by crypto is fundamentally different.  Chargeback risk is manageable when it is predictable, but that requires that it be uncorrelated. Lots of happily married men might claim they did not authorize that purchase OnlyFans subscription, but they aren't all making that claim suddenly and at the same time. The chargeback level if high, but basically static and predictable.

Crypto doesn't work like that. Although there is probably always a relatively high baseline level of chargebacks for crypto, the chargebacks are also likely to be highly correlated whenever there is a market crash or allegations of fraud about a particular coin. If the market goes up, everyone is happy with their transactions, but when it falls, customers try to get out of their losses by claiming that the purchase was never authorized in the first place. Now Visa has a 120 day time limit for issuers to chargeback transactions to acquirers, so the acquirer has to worry about market movements in a completely unpredictable market for the next four months.  If say, Bitcoin crashes, chargebacks are going to soar at the very time when the risk of the crypto company customer going bankruptcy rises. So the scenario that the payment processor is facing is that it will be hit with a tidal wave of chargebacks and that it will not be able to recover them from the crypto company, but will instead just have an unsecured claim in the crypto company's bankruptcy.

It's the RBA. It's statistics.

This Article works to debunk the myth of finance as intermediated scarce private capital and offers an alternative, more up-to-date theoretical framework for understanding the structure and operation of our financial system. We argue that, contrary to contemporary orthodoxy, modern finance is not primarily scarce, privately provided, and intermediated, but is, in its most consequential respects, indefinitely extensible, publicly supplied, and publicly disseminated. At its core, the modern financial system is effectively a public-private partnership that is most accurately, if unavoidably metaphorically, interpreted as a franchise arrangement. Pursuant to this arrangement, the sovereign public, as franchisor, effectively licenses private financial institutions, as franchisees, to dispense a vital and indefinitely extensible public resource: the sovereign’s full faith and credit.

Future access to physical cash is now under a cloud, according to Australia’s primary cash transit company, amid a sharp decline in the use of notes and coins.

The Linfox-owned Armaguard has warned that its distribution operations are unsustainable due to falling demand, sparking emergency meetings with Australia’s major banks. The Reserve Bank, which prints and issues currency, is also involved in the discussions.

The concern is that if Armaguard, which has a near monopoly over physical cash distribution in Australia, were to reduce or cease deliveries, there would be an immediate shortage.

This would impact its major clients, including banks, post offices, supermarkets and other major retailers, which would curtail the availability of cash for the community.

If demand for storefronts is down, why don't landlords just lower the rent and get a tenant in there? That's supposed to be the magic of capitalism — its ability to auto-adjust to anything the world throws at it. But that's not what is happening with vacant shops. Even before the pandemic, one study found, street-level retail spaces in Manhattan were remaining vacant for an average of 16 months.

So if COVID isn't to blame for all the shuttered stores, what is? Well, when a landlord doesn't lower the rent to get a new retail tenant, it's because that landlord can't. The market that sets retail rents isn't only between tenants and landlords. It's also between landlords and the banks that finance the buildings. And the banks, in many cases, won't let property owners lower their rents enough to fill their properties. The pandemic may have emptied out America's storefronts, but it's banks that are keeping them that way.

 Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”