America's pensions can't beat Vanguard but they can close a hospital
governance.fyi
governance.fyi
I can't believe I'm about to say something that could be construed as a defense of Larry Summers, but here goes: bank depositors are not engaging in risky behavior, they are putting cash in a bank. SVB did not get bailed out, it failed.
And as some of who supports the student loan forgiveness, yes, it is slightly inflationary but I think the benefits out weigh the inflationary effects.
Combine this with the "need" for nuclear (a perfectly cromulent but excessively expensive power source which has cheaper zero-carbon options), in the first paragraph, these comments that are not about the main topic severely undermine my ability to trust the rest of the essay.
The lesson to myself is to be narrow when I write, so as not to bring in a bunch of other positions that also need to be defended.
Universities don't care if their majors will result in a job and the student loans are a source of risk-free money.
They need to start taking on the risk of all student loan, not me, the tax payer.
The solution is to allow judges the discretion to default them in bankruptcy after X number of years after graduation. Lenders need to accept the risk. With no risk, they can loan as much as they want and have guaranteed repayment. This drives tuition higher and higher.
The more we inject money into the education system, the higher prices go. Setting a precedent that the government will just pay off your loans if you don’t pay them off only encourages more people to take out loans without thinking about paying them back.
There are so many things wrong with this idea that I can’t believe it continues to be popular. The only thing I can think of is that it’s a litmus test for who can and cannot consider second order effects of economic decisions, or who believes money can spent en masse without altering the system.
Perhaps your analysis of second-order effects is not thorough and complete? Have you really considered all of them?
I don't really think we need to forgive student loans - I think they should absolutely be dischargeable through bankruptcy, though.
Bankruptcy isn't a "get out of jail free" card - it puts a huge burden on a student relatively soon after graduating that makes it harder to start a family or buy a home. So it incentives are still aligned for the students taking the loans.
But the option that a student defaults brings some real light and transparency into a loan system that just feels wildly disconnected from reality right now. If a student can't pay the loan back with the job options in the field and is like to default... don't issue the loan.
I think it's absolutely abusive that student debt can't be discharged, and is pretty heinous as policy.
A harsh lesson in personal responsibility. If you went to an out-of-state school to major in criminology hoping to be the next CSI, and you borrowed 180k to do it, you've learned a valuable lesson.
Don't give me "they're only kids, they aren't able to make these decisions!"
what is this referring to?
To your point, making it easy to cancel debt teaches borrowers that debt isn’t a serious thing.
Requiring someone go through bankruptcy (and all of the associated negatives on your credit score, etc) seems like a good tradeoff. Allows you to get out from under the debt (the entire purpose of bankruptcy in the first place..) while not letting everyone pretend the debt never existed (need to live with the impact of bankruptcy on your ability to borrow in the future)
I don’t know why we don’t hear more people lobbying for this. I guess it’s because the sound bite isn’t as sexy.
There is also the obvious drawback that if more people can discharge the debt, the interest rate goes up, and then everyone else has to pay for the people who took out loans they didn't pay back.
So change the bankruptcy law? It’s a pretty easy fix. Create a whole new chapter if that’s what it takes. Make it dischargeable only after 7 years of nonpayment, do means testing… bankruptcy law already has these kinds of nuances built in.
Lower interest rates for schools where graduates repay their debt, higher interest for schools where many people default.
Assuming it wouldn’t disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations, that could be an interesting way to incentivize schools to get their shit together and prepare students for starting their career
It also says nothing about whether the person actually goes bankrupt, just which debts are discharged, which is one of the key parts of the bankruptcy process. Certain debts are discharged because the person can’t pay them back, which is the point of going into bankruptcy court.
Why can I, as an 18 year old, sign for a loan that _cannot_ be forgiven, graduate into a crashed economy, and still be held accountable for choices that impact me when I only had a small part in them? The system needs reformed, and we need to do something for the people still on the hook of the old system (and I say this as someone who has paid off all my student loans).
It's a bunch of able-bodied people who took the elevator instead of stairs thinking it was a shortcut, but the effort put in was the whole point. Anyone who told you otherwise is to blame. Punishing people who took the stairs sends a clear message to everyone else deciding which way to go.
Because you took the money promising to pay it back, spent it on something you wanted, and now it's gone and someone has to pay the money you spent.
It's like saying why can I, as an 18 year old, purposely drive a car into someone else's house, cause six figures in costs, and then be expected to be on the hook for that because auto liability insurance doesn't cover intentional acts? You're the one who chose to do that.
The price of tuition and the expectation that you pay back the money are not secrets kept from you until after you've already signed, or if they somehow are then maybe fix that.
The "problem" is that if you don't pay a mortgage the bank takes the house, but the only thing for them to take if you don't pay your student loans is your future earnings, which is just the thing where you have to pay back the loan.
How are they supposed to pay it back with a crashed economy? Look, I get it with personal responsibility and all that but these people were following the rules, did their part and now are burdened to their death while Big Co gets bailed out over and over and never learns responsibility. Why the double standard?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1M8KZ
The peak in 2007 was the massive housing bubble that crashed the whole economy. Where are we now?
The only reasonable way to solve that is to stop bailing out corporations.
In other words, they don't teach anything about how our economy works.
Banning credit for a large portion of the population would be a net good but we can't have that conversation.
People who want loan forgiveness anbd to rework the financial aid system aren’t looking for a get out of jail free card, they’re looking yo even the playing field a bit.
Also schools need to be reigned in, if GA et al can pay each student athlete $40,000 a month, they MUST be held accountable for burdening the students and the state with unscrupulous debt.
you make a good point, if there's no risk there should be no interest. Or at worst, the interest rate should track COLA adjustments to social security. Some basic adjustment relative to inflation so the lender gets back what they lent out.
Now that schools can pay their athletes I hope the rest of the student body take notice and start asking questions about school funds allocation. It should make it plain as day to the average student that their school has plenty of cash and choses to force them into debt.
Even loans to the US government pays interest. If you meant "no premium beyond the risk-free rate", why would anyone want to lend to students, when they have to deal with the hassle of dealing with lenders and the political risk of it getting discharged, when they can just led to the federal government instead?
Also interest is payment for the combination of losing use of money + risk + inflation.
I think I agree with your broader point - just quibbling, here.
The UK had what I think was a really nice set up, although it's now not nearly as palatable. My student loan had an interest rate tied to inflation, and repayment was a fixed amount of my income above a limit, collected via the same mechanisms used for income tax. Any unpaid loan would be written off when I turn 60.
The modern system is similar, but the interest rate has been decoupled from inflation which means that instead of paying back essentially the same value, no matter how slowly you pay it off, it's now definitely better to pay more earlier. Which makes it much more like a regressive "graduate tax" that you only have to pay if you don't earn enough.
My problem is that it's presented as a loan but is in effect a tax. I would rather have a graduate tax which was honest on the face of it rather than wilfully misleading students that it's an ordinary loan. The 'loan' framing is harmful in my opinion, because if student loans were regulated like actual loans the government would have much less room to effectively change the deal after the fact.
I also feel a lot of the current social and political toxicity around the student loan system comes from it being effectively a tax which you can get out of by lucking into having rich parents who pay your student fees upfront, it rubs people up the wrong way on class grounds. A graduate tax would avoid this problem as well.
I have a decent career that means I've paid off my loan. I can easily imagine that many folk with fees and modern loans won't ever even cover the interest payments.
This. The whole student loan mess is a direct result of their special treatment during bankruptcy.
> It tells universities that they can keep charging exorbitant tuitions because kids can still get loans to pay them.
I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of tuition claw-back from schools, when a student loan goes into default (but only by the government, not private lenders). The universities need more skin in the game to keep tuition under control.
The loan forgiveness wasn't a thing when many students took out the loans.
The solution is to do what Germany and most of the EU does - pay universities with tax money and do not charge students anything at all (or maybe a few hundred to thousand euros).
This is a totally fine system, but would change US tertiary education massively. Much of the state university increases in tuition since the GFC have been driven by exactly the opposite behaviour (cut state funding, make it up in tuition).
The US would never approve of a school system that told parents that their children weren't allowed to go to university and had to go into vocational training.
For most students at public 4-year universities in the US, room & board costs significantly more than tuition. Even in those EU countries where tuition is free, average student loan debt is often >$20k USD because of this. By way of comparison, average student loan debt in the US is ~$40k USD, and that includes private school and out-of-state student tuition as well as room & board. Note that at least for the US, $40k is the mean; the median debt is <$30k. And these numbers are totals, not per year.
Perhaps one of the best ways to address the college affordability "crisis" would be to build more dormitories. The capital expenses could be publicly funded, and then charge students maintenance costs. But for various reasons, including NIMBY development barriers as well as modern expectations (see, e.g., the vitriol spewed about the windowless UCSB Munger Hall bedrooms), schools have long ago neglected this aspect.
People do not value things they get for free.
For one, Europe's academic system works well enough to disprove this zero-sum ideology.
Making everything financialized has two serious downsides: first, it excludes a bunch of people - those who financially cannot afford to take the risk of failure (because you can't discharge student loans in a bankruptcy) even if they get a stipend, and then it leads to humanities and "niche" subjects being either killed off entirely as the chance of ever earning back the student loan is very slim, or the only students for these subjects are those who "come from money", both of which has negative impact for society at large.
University rankings are mostly nonsense. They generally over-weight English speaking universities because most of the "high impact" journals are in English. The UK also does well by these metrics, but fundamentally academic research and teaching are very different things, and incentivising high output research institutions to focus on the research breaks the social purpose of universities which is to turn out educated undergraduates.
The German model is to focus more on teaching, which is a more sustainable approach than chasing the finite research dollars.
The market lens is myopic, the market cannot be expected to produce social goods in proportion to necessity - that's not any part of its function.
I agree that the student loan system is insane. Students need grants to cover cost of living while they focus on learning, education itself of course should be free.
"producing labour units for corporate" at least pays the bills. What's the alternative? Education is for "finding yourself" or whatever? That's a nice platitude, but "finding yourself" with a film studies course doesn't pay the bills, and is arguably the reason why there's a student loan crisis in the first place.
There's a student loan crisis because US education is dominated by for profit colleges (in start contrast to most other countries) and because student loans lack ordinary consumer productions (in stark contrast to all other countries).
In the US students act as guarantors for debt obligations between the government and commercial institutions. The reverse of the usual arrangement.
No it's not. Most students go to public or non-profit colleges, and most student loans is from government (not private) lenders.
I never understood this characterization. How do the schools implement a goal for producing labor units?
> education itself of course should be free
People don't value what they get for free. If you sign up for a course in welding, are you going to be more or less diligent in learning it if you have to pay the tuition?
No education is free, it's paid in time and effort. I value my degree because it was difficult, not because it had a cost attached. One that could be purchased without effort would have no value.
The American model is terrible. The tuition prices are insane because no one pays for it now, and there's endless appetite to lend because your borrower is a systemically non-financially literate CHILD who is signing away their future wages with no right to default EVER.
No one would ever lend to the majority of these at these insane tuition prices. We'd quickly end up with reasonable tuitions like in Germany. And then most of the problem goes away.
Suddenly schools and degrees that WEREN'T good investments become good investments again.
I think about my lab classes and typically these were separate credit hours. More money to the university. Outside chemistry, we were using outdated equipment that wasn't getting refreshed/bought new.
If what you are saying is true, Humanities needs to cut costs of their credit hours or double down. For entertainment degrees (art, music), its prohibitively expensive to casually obtain the education. For business/politics/psychology, there is at least some sort of return on investment to be expected.
For your second point, I've never heard of a university that charges different credit rates for different majors (outside of special stuff like paying for certain PE classes), but that seems like it would be a university policy, not a department policy.
Is the university responsible? The arguments seem to be based on majors that have a poor job market.
For existing agreements, of course.
Going forward, for those who are the real beneficiaries of the loans, they should have a skin in the game.
Why aren't universities standing behind their product and offering financing without the unusual non-dischargeable nature of the loans? Do they not stand behind their products?
Now, sure, there's a genuine argument that those diploma factory schools aren't providing valuable service and are just parasites subsisting on public loan guarantees while their students bear the risk. But that's not a financial argument, it's a regulatory one.
No one thinks that people shouldn't be allowed to float a Stanford degree on loans, and "dismantling the entire system" just guarantees that we return to the era where only the rich could afford Ivy degrees.
If it does in fact lead to better outcomes, then the higher tax will cover the cost.
running it through the private system builds in too many perverse incentives.
It doesn't achieve this; the % of college graduates has vastly increased over the past few decades, but this hasn't contributed to any significant improvements in standardised measures of graduate knowledge or intelligence. From a business perspective the primarily usage of college is as a filter, a proxy for intelligence and willingness to follow instructions, but its usefulness as a filter has been steadily decreasing as it becomes easier and easier to attend and graduate from college.
It’s not at all clear we need to increase the level of subsidy, the rate of college attendance is very high right now compared to past history.
Second. Let's say universities did take on the burden of loans, of course that would be via a bank right?
If that's the case. How would they enforce risk? Based on certain majors? Who would give a loan with no collateral to young people with no credit on the hopes the major they picked had a viable job market years from that point?
Who gives out scholarships now?
Let's also note that the obvious response to the risk of the job market shifting after several years is to shorten the number of years required to pad out the degree, which is pure societal upside. The standard model of a four-year college degree only has you taking classes from your major during the final two years.
Many different of groups of unrelated people and organizations.
>he standard model of a four-year college degree only has you taking classes from your major during the final two years.
This has always been the case in traditional universities in the US.
As many have stated here the goal of education is not just to teach you how to do things but also teach you how to learn.
I do see value in vocational schools that only teach exactly what you enroll in to save money.
Cool. Cool.
Cool cool.
Feel like I'm answering whether or not public schools should be a thing from some 19th century peasant.
Public school is as much about providing babysitters for parents that have to work as it is about education. Notice how hard it is to be expelled from public school. Grades are irrelevant. This is very different from how post secondary education operates.
I mean, the whole premise of representative democracy is that we’re responsible for the messes we send representatives to make. If we don’t want that responsibility, I guess we’d have to look at alternatives to representative democracy, but that’s a pretty big topic.
There’d be a bit of fudging as we’d need to adjust for inflation and the reputation of colleges fluctuate over time, but this seems like the fairest way to do it.
You are being taken for a ride and you feel good about it.
I absolutely support maximizing access to education and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm not willing to prop up a giant unsecured-loan grift that transfers financial risk onto those least able to bear it, while universities jack up their tuition to grab their slice of this new pie.
Of course there are those who would exploit. But I'm not going to punish the well-deserving masses because of the unscrupulous few. It's a very small sacrifice I can make each year, which has the potential to positively impact the lives of thousands of families, and for generations to come.
Were I to refuse participation in such an opportunity to "protect" myself, I'd be no less selfish and greedy than those you warned me about.
Being slightly inflationary is a strawman concern. Student loan forgiveness has a major problem in that it’s a large reward the goes only to a specific slice of society who match some arbitrary criteria and who have useful degrees. It also fails to address the root cause of the problem, letting current generations accumulate debt in the same way.
It’s an idea that appeals to a subset of the voter base for whom a college graduate with loan debt represents the prototypical struggling young person, but ignores all of the young people who are even worse off and don’t have college degrees either.
Spending a huge amount of money to forgive student loans would be politically catastrophic in ways that a lot of people who live in highly educated middle class bubbles don’t realize. There are a lot of people struggling out there, but college graduates are not at the top of the list of people who need the most help.
Supposedly intelligent investors leaving money in accounts above FDIC limits ($250k per holder per bank, so $500k for joint account) were engaging in risky laziness.
Further the banking ecosystem in the US is predicated on the idea that depositors, especially large ones, are doing their own diligence on the health of the bank.
But people with [mb]illions of funding just plopped money in a single account ..
Perhaps the slow depositors should be punished for not being sufficiently sophisticated, or as quick as the Thiel-backed startups that got the bat-signal to do a bank run. But the "moral" value of letting all those organizations lose their deposits is very low. The moral value of letting SVB fail, which it did, seems high to me!
One could argue that the depositors didn't know SVB was unreliable, but that's kind of undercut by the fact that there was a run on the bank in the first place.
Silicon Valley, however, home to the world's greatest concentrations of private wealth? Oh no, thats a too much to ask that they play by the same rules.
This notion that the $250K FDIC insurance limit is an acceptable part of our system, except in cases where a bank fails and the depositors are... sympathetic? It's incredibly silly.
If students could not borrow enough to attend, they would be forced to lower costs (not necessarily the very top universities, but all the rest).
And if that was the proposal, would that be better or worse than the current status quo?
A major part of why it's so expensive is because of government subsidies to private healthcare insurance. No or little public option is exactly what allows insurance companies to go hog wild on their premiums.
The ACA subsidies are simply a bandaid on a broken system which allows insurance to further break the system as they adapt to what people are willing to pay for a necessity.
The ACA is a bandaid, and may be making things worse over time, at least in some areas. But Americans don't see to have the appetite to really change anything. Probably because most voters are insulated from this by good (enough) employees plans.
Any functioning health care system is going to have a "band-aid" exactly ACA subsidies: make sure that those with the lowest incomes can still afford health care. Something in between Medicaid and the full cost. But as we rein in the costs and get healthcare to be a smaller fraction of GDP, the size of the band-aid can shrink.
The US has real problem that require real changes, but the political system is not responding.
IMO, people sense this, grow frustrated, and become willing to take a chance on someone who seems to speak (more) truth, and claims to be willing to pursue real changes.
We are starting to see more moderate mainstream politicians willing to speak more truthfully, and propose policy changes that may not appeal to everyone. But I'm not sure it's happening fast enough.
The incentives are not so naively simple
Cost is certainly also a factor, but I suspect population is a bigger factor.
The reason universities are so expensive is there is no limit on how much they can charge for tuition and no requirements on how much they pay their professors. It allows them to dump a huge portion of their funds into the marketing and athletic departments.
I know of a few religious universities who's mission is mainly to educate (so their well educated members can pay back more money to the church). While they do subsidize the educational costs, it isn't by as much as you'd think and it does result in some very cheap education.
There's no reason the government couldn't do exactly the same thing. It did right up until reagan.
Any system that can juice itself by increasing both funding and cost will scale both until the natural incentive gradients (are you smart? do you actually want to do stuff or do you just want a desk job?) vanish into the noise. When everyone went to college, nobody learned anything.
University is one of those things you always want to be capability rather than means gated, but those of means will always want their kids to get in regardless of how they were raised. After all, they worked hard. Why should their kids? They will ally with every convenient rationalization in order to moralize for the politics, taking advantage of arguments about "disadvantaged backgrounds" etc to treat everything as a means problem, but the goal is to dilute the capability aspect, and that robs talent.
If you have exceptional talent, you need to know the truth. Systems naturally try to optimize the dumb-rich to smart ratio so that there's a lot of subsidy available for anyone who actually needs to be there, but consequent GPA inflation demands that we make the education somewhat meaningless, so you're really on your own to set goals, and any good ones are way higher. Check the boxes, take the free lunch, and then treat the overall coddling like a charade that must be ignored. Then again, isn't self direction always that way?
* Eliminate the entire federal student loan program. Just gone. No more loans.
* Make it so that private loans for tuition and related expenses can be trivially discharged. Like just fill out a form and it's auto-approved. You can just decide to not pay your student loans with no repercussions whatsoever. There's probably a better way to accomplish this legally but make it so that they're toxic to private lenders.
Once the money officially dries up and less than 1% of families could pay out of pocket for current tuition rates then we watch as jobs stop requiring degrees, apprenticeships become popular, and schools belt-tighten to focus on student ROI. Watch magically as GE requirements evaporate and we find out they weren't ever necessary in the first place. Watch as high schools get pressured to teach actually useful things instead of being grade school the sequel.
My grandpa paid his way to a PhD as a line cook. Got no financial support from family who were only slightly above dirt poor.
Like I don't want to be completely reductive but a good chunk of university classes are 30-100 people paying for a single dude and a room with chairs to lecture for 5 hours a week. This doesn't have to be ruinously expensive.
That can still be easily done.
In California, most families earning under $100k get their tuition costs to UCs covered. CSUs are probably even easier.
Then, PhDs largely get paid for by undergrad tuition and research grants, it's pretty unusual for PhDs to pay their own way.
I mean it can work so long as the government can bully the university into keeping a lid on the per student costs but large public universities have massive amounts of political capital to sell the cost increases to the government.
Having been the "single dude", the issue is not that they are paying lecturers too much for this service, doubly so for adjuncts.
This is exactly why I'm saying that university can be made orders of magnitude less expensive is because the primary educational value you get which comes from professors lecturers, and TA's is not expensive at all. Everything else is negotiable and an opportunity to make cuts.
According to this page https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordabi..., Harvard covers your costs if you have <$100k family income. So in ways it's better than covering tuition with part time work.
In a typical state school, where's most of the fat accumulating? What could be cut significantly without affecting the quality of education?
Some areas:
- more and more administrative staff and "middle management". The assistant to the assistant vice chancellor for elm trees.
- Building and running very expensive science research operations. These may well be worthwhile efforts, but conflating them with undergraduate educations is a problem.
- more and more student amenities. Fancy dorms, student centers, rec centers, etc
- competitive athletics
A big part of this, is that they need to attract students, ideally ones who can pay or borrow. And students are putting a lot of weight on the research programs (they impact public ratings), fancy dorms, rec centers, football teams, etc. And they are spending loan money, and don't seem to fully grasp the economics. But even if they did, the highest rated schools are the ones spending all this money, and thus charging more, it's a cycle. And this propagates down to mid- and lower tier schools.
And then people in the leadership ranks of these schools are in part evaluated on how the ranking of their school changes. So if you can go from spot 150 to 140 by raising fees to build stuff you don't really need to teach (but improve your ranking), that is good for you.
(I know this from being personally involved in this at more then one company)
Also some of the universities are older than the government by hundreds of years and private, the government can’t just “own” them.
I met a Polish student a number of years ago who was attending a U.S. Ivy League institution. She said people made fun of her back home for "buying her degree". That has stuck with me ever since.
In the olden days student loans qualification depended on the students degree program and grades, and there wasn’t any repayment problem
That is risky behavior. You can't earn interest without taking a risk.
Genuine question, I have no idea, but I didn't choose my bank based on interest rate. I can't pay bills or transfer money if it's cash under the mattress.
Edited to add: not my area of expertise, but I did research it a couple years ago when I was acting as executor for the estate of a deceased person. So take what you will from that. I do notice banks usually have a sign up saying they are FDIC insured. I think it's required, but I don't know for sure. I suppose a shady investment firm could try to suggest they are an insured bank without actually saying so.
Both loan forgiveness and nuclear have huge benefits
What obligation to the generation that's been aware of physical evidence of climate change for decades and ignored it?
The old dying and the youth rewriting social and political custom and truism is a physical constant of the universe.
Physics is ageist; sorry/not sorry grandparents.
Because the taxpayers (and all users of USD) repeatedly bail them out. I could define anything as not being risky if I knew taxpayers would bail it out.
More importantly, if there is no risk, what purpose does a bank serve? They’re a pretty bloated middleman if their sole purpose is to update a database to reflect incoming and outgoing cash flow. The government should be able to offer that service for free.
Bank shareholders or creditors are engaging in risky behavior and should face the full consequences of bank failures. No bailouts for them.
There wasn't any bailout at all. This entire thread is so confusing. But yes they got 2 days or something of deposit freeze IIRC.
SVB came out of this broke - as they should for such mismanagement - but the concern is that depositors were made whole beyond the amount usually insured by the FDIC.
But, at least in the US, regulators keep blocking the 1st step: narrow banking. Let banks offer savings accounts that just stick the money in the Fed, zero risk.
Can you provide some more information, because I'm not really seeing the value in being required to interact with more financial institutions in practice.
- on deposit at the Fed, in the account of a Fed member bank (which could be your bank, or a bank your bank has an account at)
- loaned out by your bank (or again, a bank your bank uses)
The Fed, so far, has refused to allow new member banks (eg that could deposit at the Fed) that don't intend to ever loan out deposits. They would take all customer deposits and stick them at the Fed. Many (most? the ones at the Fed anyway) think allowing this would siphon away money that would otherwise be used to make loans. They are, in effect, putting their finger on the scale to push you to allow your savings to be used as loans.
The rise of Private Credit, where wealthy individuals and institutions loan money to private firms for to fund loans is the new thing that could break this open. These arrangements are long term, the customer can't "call" the money back, they are committed, and (for the most part) their commitment matches the duration of the loans. So there can be no bank runs. And the people providing the money know what they are doing.
Levine is mostly arguing that with so much money in private credit, we could do without forcing small savers to fund loans.
I can see some upsides (in addition to matching bank creditor and debtor duration expectations), like the implication that it would be easier in some sense to safely manage large amounts of cash because said cash is invested in T-bills instead of who knows what, but there are some obvious downsides as well concerning risk management. To quote Levine directly here, "How will the NDFIs find an extra $100 of loans to make? One obvious possibility is by making much worse loans. Another is by making fake loans."
Banks provide security for deposits as well as liquidity (velocity of money), and slight inflationary pressure.
Wiping out depositors doesn't prevent much moral hazard since the depositors are unsophisticated, so they are unable to differentiate risk among banks.
This type of corruption is antithetical to a strict, rules based system, which is needed for trust in the financial system. Either give everyone the same protection explicitly, or follow the rules.
Also, the rules and lack of centralization might have made sense when cash was a thing, but in a society where electronic money is the primary mode of payment, I see no reason why a non government entity should be involved at all in the simple act of maintaining a record of how much money is an account and adding and subtracting to it.
The taxpayer didn't pay for those bailouts. They were funded by the DIF, which was replenished by premiums that banks pay.
> They’re a pretty bloated middleman if their sole purpose is to update a database to reflect incoming and outgoing cash flow.
Did you just look into what banks do at all before making this claim? If that were the case, companies like Apple, Bilt, and Robinhood wouldn't be relying on real banks and could easily start their own.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here because it sounds like you're saying depositing funds in a bank is considered risky behaviour?
89% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.
$250k is not much at all for a business
Individuals can do this too with investment brokers or wealth management providers.
Alternatively we could just made FDIC coverage unlimited, but then that creates poor risk taking incentives, which is the whole point of not setting the expectation of the a bailout by making exceptions.
of course it is, that's why the bank pays you interest on your deposit. They loan out what you deposit at a higher rate and collect the difference as profit. If that loan defaults then your money is gone because the bank was never able to collect it back. FDIC was invented to insure your deposit up to 250k so you're protected (up to 250k) in case that happens.
And banks do a lot more than what you described, which I have to assume you know already.
And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong?
https://americandeposits.com/insights/brief-history-us-bank-...
>In response to these significant failures, the FDIC took historic action to restore faith in the banking system and protected all deposits – even those above the traditional limit. However, it is important to note that the FDIC limit did not change, nor did the standard process for protecting deposits. Instead, the extended protection offered to depositors of Signature Bank and SVB was an exception to the normal operating procedure.
I do not have a comprehensive list of every time depositors have been bailed out, but I have read about it multiple times in my adult life of the last 25 years.
>And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong?
The federal government already controls all the banks. What could go wrong that they already do not have the power to make go wrong?
The act of maintaining a central database of funds so that individuals can transfer money to one another is a relatively simple and cheap problem, one perfectly suited to be provided by the government. It should be infrastructure, just like printing money is infrastructure under the purview of the government.
You mean like FedNow[0], which many banks are eschewing in favor of services life Zelle[1]?
Also, I don't know what you have been reading, but a comprehensive list of times that depositors have been bailed out by taxpayers (or anyone else, as the FDIC is not bailing out anyone by definition) would be quite short.
Lastly, there is a huge distinction between regulating banks and directly controlling access to an individual's funds. If you really can't see any theoretical problems there, I suggest you work on your creativity.
In particular the article incorrectly states that the bank was bailed out. It was not. The bank failed. Depositors who were running their non-profit in the Bay Area did not lost all their charitable contributions.
The bank failed because it had placed deposits into US Treasury bonds that were temporarily worth less for sale on the open market than they would be at maturity. When Peter Thiel started a bank run by telling all his investments to pull their funds, that exposed the SCB mismanagement.
When the depositors were bailed out, taxpayers didn't lost anything, it was a wash. We could have paid at bond maturity or now, but it made little difference to us.
I think he did more than that. He either has precognition Nostradamus would be proud of or he absolutely had insider information, and a good amount of it.
1. He knew that when the bank closure would be, because despite how the FDIC has very detailed and historically very successful efforts at keeping such plans highly confidential (for obvious reasons), like agents in hotels under fake names, etc., he told his investments on Wednesday night that "all funds must be out of SVB by COB Thursday". FDIC rolled into SVB 8am Friday morning.
2. He had also had instructed another of his companies to build a website and app that was able to handle applications for business bridge loans, and it "needed to be tested, and ready to go live, by noon on Friday".
Also, not for nothing, causing a bank run is a federal felony.
The bailout did not accelerate bond maturity. Those were picked up by other Banks when assets were sold off.
Last, who is the other banks that paid for the bailout, not taxpayers, at least not directly. If you call higher FDIC insurance rates for JPMorgan Chase a taxpayer cost, how does that logic scale to the rest of the economy?
The "Safe Withdrawal Rate" assumed by many private individuals planning for their own retirement assumes a withdrawal rate in the 3 - 4% range based on the "trinity study" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study
Meanwhile, American public pensions are structurally engineered around a 7%+ SWR - this was recently confirmed again by the median goal by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
The perpetual "under funded" nature, and all the return hunting etc in pension fund management can be explained by that disconnect.
But this then belies a very uncomfortable acknowledgement which is that we cannot afford the government workforce currently in place requiring us to either:
(a) Raise taxes to increase contributions.
Or
(b) Somehow make due with less government :)
But mortality credits (pooling) don't solve the math of the discount rate - they add 100 - 150 basis points of reduction so retarget to 5.5% vs 4% if generous
So they are still structurally designed where they HAVE to allocate towards risk to meet their targets which is at core of issue
But that does not justify the numbers we actually see being used.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 mandates that non taxpayer funded defined benefit pension plans use discount rates from high grade corporate bond yield curves, which are much lower.
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/pension-plan-funding-se...
Even some non taxpayer funded defined benefit pension plans are more privy than others, depending on the political power of their beneficiaries.
We also have the problem that paying pensions becomes somebody else's problem. Thus in contract negotiations pushing benefits into pensions rather than current wages becomes attractive. You can agree to more without breaking the current budget.
The old rules worked better because limiting what pension funds could be in also limited the shenanigans that were possible.
So the "we'll find 'efficiencies' somehow" argument that every opposition party trots out when they're campaigning?
The truth is nobody wants to solve the deficit. It's a self eating beast at this point and simply cutting funding for a bunch of shit won't solve it. A lot of these things are fundamentally the federal governments concern, whether people admit it or not.
3% vs 7% doesn’t seem broken on principle, just, a tuning parameter is off.
It's not just the government. It's all of the other stuff seniors buy. It used to be that you just kind of stuck around and retired in the area where you had worked. You had paid off that house, so you retired in it. Maybe you went to the Shriners' hall and played bingo with a core group of friends until you couldn't anymore. Then you moved into a retirement home and they found activities for you to do there until Father Time came to collect his due. Maybe you spoiled yourself with a Buick or Lincoln sometime between getting your gold watch from the plant manager and croaking.
Now, that's not enough. We need entire retirement communities hundreds of miles away in warmer climes where they can play golf several months out of the year. We need cruises and travel packages. We need cosmetic procedures to look younger. We need more advanced surgeries that extend life, though not participation in the workforce. And of course, now that Lincoln is a Mercedes.
And that's great, because we've told everyone that they deserve it after a long, hard career. There's only one problem: we never addressed where that retirement income was actually coming from. They're coming from that 7% SWR, which must be funded somehow. Otherwise the retirees might have to stay in-town, be cold during the winter, and provide childcare for the grandkids because preschool now costs as much as a year of college tuition. And that makes them cranky and they start calling investment advisors and politicians demanding answers.
For example, CaLPERS has ~45% of their assets under management in debt / real estate.
Further, I know it goes against economic orthodoxy, but I am a big fan of buying low and selling high. When the market is bad, I become more frugal, I might even run on debt instead of selling. When the market is at all time highs, I'll sell some from riskier and move that into other things.
Another oddity in this situation... People die slightly more often during flu season, so you could game this and plan to withdraw less.
Should New York’s $270B pension fund abandon Wall Street? - https://www.semafor.com/article/08/07/2025/new-york-comptrol... - August 7th, 2025 ("Drew Warshaw is running for New York state comptroller, a job most voters would struggle to define but one that includes oversight of the state’s pension fund. If he unseats 18-year incumbent Thomas DiNapoli, Warshaw’s plan is to move much of its nearly $300 billion of investments into ultra-cheap, passive index funds. The New York State and Local Retirement System has more than $90 billion invested in private equity, private credit, real estate, and other complex assets. All promise high returns — catnip for pension managers facing future payouts to retirees — but charge high fees, too. The question facing New York and hundreds of other state and local pension funds, charitable endowments, universities, and government funds around the world: Are these high-priced managers worth the fees they’re charging?")
What Does Nevada’s $35 Billion Fund Manager Do All Day? Nothing - https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-does-nevadas-35-billion-fu... | https://archive.today/ywTFd - October 19th, 2016
The management fees are, broadly speaking, a grift/rake of capital flows and economically inefficient, based on the evidence and the data. The issue at play is that the capital market ecosystem has become a bureaucracy that demands to continue to grow, versus cannibalizing itself in the name of economically efficient capital allocation.
Tangentially, the markets are moving to more trading (24/7/5) versus less because when trades are made, money is made in a Parable of the Broken Window sort of way by the capital market industry.
I find it interesting that the OP isn't arguing pensions should switch to investing in index funds, but rather into other projects the OP considers morally superior and that he personally believes will give better returns then hedge funds. To me that just feels like trading one set of hedge fund managers for another.
TFA says otherwise, in detail and with a lot of supporting data. If you're going to contradict it you ought to cite a source.
And here's a link to the CalPers celebrating their new ROI: https://news.calpers.ca.gov/celebrating-10th-anniversary-cal...
Investors Warn of 'Rot in Private Equity' as Funds Strike Circular Deals - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46380751 - December 2025
Once Wall Street’s High Flyer, Private Equity Loses Its Luster - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46364566 - December 2025
Private Equity’s Latest Financial Alchemy Is Worrying Investors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44891882 - August 2025
People Are Worried About Private Market Liquidity - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-06-10/peo... | https://archive.today/wJ3Uf - June 10th, 2025
Private Equity Fundraising Plunges Amid Struggle to Return Cash - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-27/private-e... | https://archive.today/hxvzb - May 27th, 2025
Private Equity Firms Hunt for Alternate Ways to Return Investor Cash - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-05-14/privat... | https://archive.today/6UzBk - May 14th, 2025
Unlocking a potential US$3.8 trillion opportunity for private equity firms - https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-s... - December 16th, 2024
That's not recent at all. They've, for a long time, had large allocations to PE funds.
We won't know the return until the investment is over and capital is returned.
This kind of deceit is one of the main services PE funds provide
Increasing the money(number), while making everything else costly (a lot more costlier in reality because of fictional inflation number) is not only hard to achieve, but even if achieved, doesn't mean much. ".S. Dollar itself has lost roughly 98% of its purchasing power over the long term" -- random Warren Buffett quote.
Usually it's not implemented as a rule though, but rather by creating tax cuts for certain kind of investments.
E. G. In France you get tax cuts if you invest in green energy, housing in poor neighborhood, and a trillion other subcategories.
> For example, EU pension funds allocate just 0.02% of total assets to VC, compared with almost 2% for US pension funds. And this percentage is applied to a much larger asset base: over 140% of GDP in the United States compared with around 30% in the EU.
> In Europe, approximately €11.5 trillion is held in cash and deposits. This is one-third of households’ total financial assets. In the United States, the figure is around only one-tenth.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2024/html/ecb.sp241...
Years spent in retirement have roughly doubled, while the pyramid has shrunken from 16:1 workers to retirees in 1950 to 3:1 today.
Means testing and retirement age increases also cause a voter or worker revolt.
Going to be real hard to keep this on the rails.
Is it though? Much of the article talks about public employee pensions, and many of those are ridiculously underwater. People tend to think of pensions as deposit accounts that grow a bit while you wait to retire, but in reality many of them pay out a portion of your pension deposits directly to retirees, because the money those retirees deposited has already been spent.
The problem with US student loans is usury.
Student Loan interest rates in the US can be as high as 9-13%. The government can borrow at 3.36% which even if we assume a 20% overhead is 4.03% to the borrower. Other countries/governments do a scheme similar to this, and it makes repayment realistic.
I'm certain someone will respond telling me the difference between Subsidized, Unsubsidized, PLUS, and private loans which completely missing the point: There shouldn't be a private entity that needs to turn a profit on the backs of students begin with, it is immoral. If you remove the private for-profit entity, the loan-type distinction goes away.
It isn't uncommon to read stories from people, who graduated and are in good jobs, and had no gaps in repayments that are now on 300%+ of their original borrowed amount.
Who makes the profit is largely irrelevant; the students suffer the same either way.
Yeah. That's what pension funds do. They accumulate money and hand it out to people who think they damn well better be able to withdraw upon it.
In 1960, the birth rate in the US started to decline. It hasn't had a meaningful rise since. [0]
Markets can experience natural growth - typically through birth rates, sometimes through immigration - or they can begin to more thoroughly monetize capital as to create growth from fewer people.
The Baby Boomers thoroughly broke the ability to grow through natural means, and it's been that way for 25-30 years.
This is a problem, because you need that natural growth to fund the retirements that the Boomers planned on having, along with the entitlement state in the US, which focuses almost exclusively on people over the age of 65 with OASDI and Medicare.
So how do you solve this problem?
If you're investing the hospital business, for example, you can no longer expect the same sort of growth that you used to if your plan is to have a current customer birth their 2.1 kids in your maternity ward. You now need to do other things to monetize the current customer, like charging him more for his next procedure, or - even better - looking to developing markets like India (or China 25 years ago) and focus your investment there. It's a lot easier to bring a rural clinic "up to spec" in China than it is in the US, because one started out with far cheaper needs to meet. X-ray machines are easy to install; cancer centers with advanced imaging machines and academic medicine practitioners are expensive.
And that's what the investors do. They find ways to get in on deals that aren't in the US. It's not just medicine, either. That capital that built Shenzhen into a tech mecca came from the US.
In the meantime, they need to find ways to exist in the American market, so they do what I mentioned earlier: they monetize the hell out of customers they already have. If that means closing a hospital and making the "customer" (read: guy having a heart attack) go to one twenty miles further away that has a better business value, then they do exactly that.
Or, they find ways to monetize the younger generations more, since they're not drawing on pensions and IRAs yet. Otherwise they risk gobbling up the returns they handed back to their members with increased costs.
[0]https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
Private equity is a convenient whipping boy for ignorant, low-information HN users who don't understand the basics of how finance works. You can certainly find examples of destructive or unethical behavior if you dig deep enough. What you don't see in the news are all the cases where PE saved companies that would have otherwise gone bankrupt.
I though HN was a site that welcomed people of all levels of knowledge and shared thoughts, ideas, and resources to help people learn so we can elevate each other. Why are you coming at someone who freely admitted they lack understanding and tossing out a dismissive reply to them instead of saying: "Let me help fill in the knowledge gap here."
This is an unnecessarily aggressive comment and not appropriate.
But also, your own comment is information-free. Why don’t you share actual examples and we can determine if those are significant enough to erase the anecdotal evidence from the other side. Virtually all examples of PE I’ve seen are extractive. They don’t result in a better product. They are instead just lazy arbitrage relying on the power of capital, vendor lock-in, switching costs, and the limited capital of their abused customers.
As for “how would that work exactly” - like anything else. We can come up with ways to classify companies as private equity and enact enormous taxes on them. Or pass other types of regulations into law.
For example, banks are given pretty generous capital rule treatment when they loan money to PE firms to increase leverage. We could stop that. They also get a lot of tax preferences that increase returns to investors and managers.
> A 2024 Review of Financial Studies paper <https://www.nber.org/papers/w28474> found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with an ~10% increase in deaths, implying approximately 22,500 additional deaths over the twelve-year sample period.
I was asking for examples where private equity has made things better.
If the President can sign EOs banning private equity/institutional ownership of homes [1], OP's ask does not seem to be that out there imho; again, all of these rules are arbitrary and can change at any time. How do we change rules around ownership? We change laws or how they're applied.
[1] Congressional housing deal faces new hurdle as Trump pushes investor ban - https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/13/housing-deal-faces-... - February 13th, 2026
> What you don't see in the news are all the cases where PE saved companies that would have otherwise gone bankrupt.
Please provide citations of companies worth saving were saved by PE. I will start with the only one I know: Barnes & Noble.
Dig deep enough? Please. Merely tilt your head slightly upwards, and let your eyes feast on countless examples.
It's like researching the safety of driving by only looking at local news station websites. It will seem like the only thing those cars do is crash and kill people.
The problem is not private equity, but that private equity engages in corporate raiding--buy up a company, borrow, extract capital, sell it to suckers who don't see the problems. Dig into practically all malfeasance and you'll find it's someone who benefits from making the future value of something look better than it really is and then leaving the problem for somebody else. At the executive level I think the answer is mandating income above a certain threshold be paid over time based on the future value. (Stuff that's actively traded would be easy: Let's say the cap was $1m. Pay the CEO 10m? No, he gets $1m, plus shares currently worth $1m to be delivered in a year, shares currently worth $1m to be delivered in two years and so on.) And while there is pending income they are categorically prohibited from any transaction that benefits from a drop in share price. Inadvertent (say, bought a fund that shorted the stock) it's a 100% tax rate, deliberate and all pending shares are forfeit. I have no idea of an answer with the PE problem.
This is just a boogie man media term. There are good owners/investors and bad.
PE is finalisation of business, its ownership is far more similar to a mortgagee than an owner in every sense of the word.
PE is investing. Limited partners give pool some money, the manager is the general partner, they also put some money into the pool, to align incentives, and that's it.
Everything else is not PE itself, but whatever strategy the fund has, or whatever deal some traders have came up.
Is this a definitional quibble or do you not believe there is a problem?
I do support banning certain financial actions. Like paying dividends with debt. Or structuring deals that achieve same effect. On other hand I would also ban stock buybacks.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26371/w263...
the finding is that on average, target firms add jobs and see improved labor productivity
Restricting a previously purchased business from taking out debt feels harder to regulate, but someone smart could probably figure out a few good rules to stop the majority of abuses.
I can't really see how it would happen and that I suppose is part of the fun.
Everyone has a prediction about what will cause the next major financial panic. Personally I think it will be triggered by property and casualty insurers who have purchased a lot of bonds where the credit ratings don't accurately reflect the true default risk. But who knows, it could be something else.
Any ETF's share value can "crash" if there are not enough buyers to purchase shares when they are trading below NAV (net asset value). It's worth a quick google to see what "market makers" or "authorized participants" do, but the thing to keep in mind is: if the market is kind of exploding in some major ways (think 2008) an ETF might not have a lot of buyers, even if its market price is well below its net asset value.
Unless you're proposing some weird industry wide boycott of Vanguard or something. In that case the only thing stock traders are going to accomplish is destruction of every publicly traded asset they hold as market confidence in retail traders slowly slips downwards.
This is the same argument that Ann Pettifor has about how the poor allocation of pension funds is because "it’s much easier to make money from gambling and speculating than it is from investing in the land on the one hand, in the broader sense of the word, or investing in labor"
https://annpettifor.substack.com/p/on-pensions-and-the-globa...