섀도 뱅킹 시스템: 위험, 규제 및 경기 침체

### 240조 달러 규모의 섀도 뱅킹 시스템 규제에 대한 연방준비제도의 과제
* 🏦 전 세계적으로 비은행 부문은 **약 240조 달러**로, **약 180조 달러 규모인 기존 은행 시스템**보다 더 큰 규모입니다.
* 🌐 연방준비제도이사회는 현재 **섀도 뱅킹 시스템이 기존 은행 시스템보다 규모가 크고 강력**하기 때문에 두 시스템이 함께 작동하지만 규제에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.
* 📉 "미연준이 음지에서 일어나는 모든 금융 거래를 규제하는 데 집중하기 위해서는 **오늘날 실물 경제에서 일어나는 일을 거의 무시**해야 합니다."
* 🤠 섀도 뱅킹 시스템의 규제되지 않는 특성으로 인해 그 안에서 활동하는 금융 기관은 마치 **서부 개척시대의 카우보이**처럼 행동할 수 있습니다.
* 🧐 "그림자 속에 무엇이 있는지 아무도 알 수 없습니다. 이러한 기업에 대한 **국제 규제 기관도 없기 때문에 아무도 말할 수 없습니다.**"
* 📉 다니엘 디마티노 부스의 맥켈비 법칙에 따르면 지난 12개월 동안 최저점과의 실업률 편차를 기준으로 볼 때 **경기 침체는 2023년 10월에 시작**되었습니다.
* 📉 실업률은 종종 경기 침체의 첫 번째 지표 중 하나이며, 최근 미시간 대학교의 소비자 심리 데이터에 따르면 **3개월간 소득 기대치가 사상 두 번째로 빠르게 하락**한 것으로 나타나 어려운 경제 전망을 시사하고 있습니다.
* 💸 현재의 경제 환경을 고려할 때 개인 투자자는 **자신의 위험 허용 범위를 평가**하고, **과거 시장 패턴**을 고려하고, 포트폴리오에서 **얼마나 손실할 의향**이 있는지 결정하는 것이 좋습니다.

전 세계적으로 비은행 부문은 약 240조 달러 규모로, 기존 은행 시스템보다 더 크고 영향력 있는 시장입니다.

and here we sit today contemplating a non-banking sector globally that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 trillion dollars. Um, and once again we're struggling with the fact that that's bigger than the what we call the conventional banking system. The banking system that is visible to us, which is about $180 trillion dollars in scope. And so, with that as a background, I think that the Federal Reserve is rightly focused today on regulating the shadow banking system because it's bigger and it has more power than the than the conventional banking system has, even though the two really do work hand in and and benefit and profit from one another. In order for the FED to focus on regulating all of the financial transactions that are going on in the shadows, they almost have to ignore what's going on in the real economy today. Think, act, and prosper. You are now tuned in the Money Level Show. Hello everyone, welcome back to the Money Level Show where we think, act, and prosper. Today we have the pleasure of

being joined by Danielle D. Martino Bo, who has a lot of experience, has been an advisor, experienced being an adviser to the Dallas Fed, the author of Fed Up, and the CEO of Qi Research. How are you doing today? I'm doing great, cannot complain, and that's always better than the alternative. That's good, that's good. Sometimes that's like a weird question I ask people because it's like if my guests are having a bad day, they may not want the audience to know too, so I may have to change the question up for something. Well, I'm not faking, I'm not having a bad day, I'm happy for it. Yes, yes. Offline, I was telling you about my landlord woes and everything, and so, yeah, yeah, definitely comes with the territory, but you know, I'm excited to be alive and to be here with you today. Well, let's get to it. Yes, so you've been doing a lot of research, and you've had a lot of experience being an

advisor to the FED working with the Fed. So, I just want to get your overview on what do you think the fed is currently getting right, and what do you think the FED is currently getting wrong. So, um, right now I think that what the FED is getting right has to do with what it's getting wrong on purpose. So, um, I speak kind of cryptic cryptically on purpose. Um, the bank is clearly more focused than it's ever been, um, maybe since the financial crisis. And I've been looking back at that history when Timothy gner was being called up in front of of Congress back in 2009, 2010 in the aftermath uh of the crisis from when he had been the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And way back then, they were contemplating, you know, Shadow banking system that was maybe 10 trillion dollar, 12 trillion dollar in the United States. And here we sit today contemplating a non-banking sector globally that's somewhere in the neighborhood of $240

trillion um um, and once again, we're struggling with the fact that that's bigger than the what we call the conventional banking system. The banking system that is visible to us, which is about $180 trillion dollars in scope. And so, with that as a background, I think that the Federal Reserve is rightly focused today on regulating the shadow banking system because it's bigger and it has more power than the than the conventional banking system has, even though the two really do work hand in and and benefit and profit from one another. In order for the FED to focus on regulating all of the financial transactions that are going on in the shadows, they almost have to ignore what's going on in the real economy today. Does that make it right? No, but um, but at the core of the inequality divide that has very much so become part of what's at the root of the divisiveness in America today is the fact that the shadow banking system is not regulated. The people who control the financial system, they get to do so as

any cowboy would have in in the wild west they're they're not regulated they're not controlled they're not supervised they're not even seen and if Jerome Powell who does not need to be the head of the FED he does not need to be at the epicenter of of criticism whether it's from Biden or from Trump they've both been very hard on him uh because he doesn't need to be there then there has to be some other purpose some other reason that he is at the Federal Reserve and in my view that is so that he can pursue the much loftier goal of of reigning in regulating supervising the non-bank system for the long-term good of the United States yes yes so so you mentioned 240 trillion that number just had my brain just going whoa um so what are the the risks there uh in terms of like if the fed you know gets makes a misstep or um I mean obviously we we had the global financial crisis which was significant as well but

I mean $240 trillion dollar. I mean, that's, that's, that seems like Great Depression, you know, 5.0 or something, you know, of that nature, but uh, what so what, what happens there, what, what's going on there, time out, quick break in the action. This message is brought to you by the rule Symposium. This annual Symposium is hosted by the legendary investor Rick Ru himself. It will take place from July 7th through 11th in Boa Ratan, Florida. Mr. Rule invites some of the most Brilliant Minds in macroeconomics and natural resource invest. In this year, featured speakers include Danielle D Martino Booth, Nomi Prince, Jim Rickards, Grant Williams, Loo Tigra, and more. Rick even organizes the Living Legends panel where he invites individuals who have built billion-dollar businesses from scratch. Attendees will be introduced to a myriad of companies active in the natural resources space with the companies invited being the ones that Rick Rule invests in himself. The supposed museum is held at the Boke of time, which is an

amazing resort with exceptional amenities. I attended in 2023 and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. I went on an amazing cruise with Rick and other investors and CEOs of companies and even had the opportunity to test drive in Ashton Martin for the first time. So don't miss out on this opportunity to have fun and receive high-quality education to help secure your financial future. Click the link below to sign up and I promise you won't regret it. But if you do, Rick offers an amazing money-back guarantee. So what are you waiting for? Click the link below to sign up today. Now, without further ado, let's get back to the content. Well, what's going on there? Um, at the root of your question is what the problem is. It's because something that is in the shadows, by definition, is not visible. So when I say that the non-banks of the world, whether you're adding up the aggregate of all of the private equity, hedge fund, public pensions, all of it together, the Black Rocks of the

world all of these entities added up on a global level come to $240 trillion dollar. Uh, in assets, which is, which dwarfs the $180 trillion do conventional banking system that is regulated. What can go wrong when something is that of that magnitude is being contemplated. We have no idea. We don't know. We're absolutely clueless. And again, that's why people are always somebody who watches this, and my the very first YouTube comment might be, Oh, that lady's full of it. How do they know? How do they know I'm full of it or not? They can't tell me what's in the shadows. Nobody can because there is there's no International regulator of these entities either. And that's why some part of me knows that J Powell and all the other policy makers at the Federal Reserve, some of them probably know that they're committing the mother of all policy errors. By by keeping higher F longer inside recession, forget about headed into recession, we've already seen too many revisions to play semantics and play word games. We're in recession so.

why is it that the FED then wants to ignore that we're in recession unless it's pretty important to press forward with regulation that bring out of the Shadows the financial activities being undertaken inside the world of private capital and that's kind of where we are. You probably did not mean to ask this question at all uh but you got the answer and the answer is we don't know what's going on in the shadows. We need to know what's going on in the shadows in order to protect what comes for the future for future generations and that's why I'm not some shill for the Federal Reserve for God's sake. I wrote a book called Fed Up um but that is why I do hope that J Powell succeeds because after the last round of regulations Dodd Frank and what have you every Banker who was like I can't play by those rules I won't make enough money I'll just leave I'll just leave the public sector and I'll just bleed into the private financial sector and

then I'll just keep making as much money as I want. That's exactly what happened, the biggest brain drain in the history of United States. And now they're unre unregulated as they were before the crisis. Congratulations, yay, yeah, yeah. That's very concerning. I mean, especially, you know, my audience, a lot of retail investors, and you know, we try to stay ahead and try to stay informed so that we can protect ourselves and teach others how to protect themselves. So I definitely appreciate you sharing that information with me. I'm G have to I'm have to go back and watch it again for sure. It's you look if you want to, if you say retail investors, the whole reason that roaring Kitty became a achieved cult-like status is because one person said I'm GNA stand up to some big hedge fund that I know is working in the background against smaller investors. Did he succeed? No, people lost their shirts, but on the other hand, we did see a big

hedge fund go down. The question is, did the firms that were backing that hedge fund go down? Hell no, they're still with us, and they're still unregulated. Yeah, yeah, for sure. So just transitioning, uh, here. Um, so I'm going to share screen. So you mentioned that we're already in a recession and in your, um, in your, uh, tweet. I'm going to head over to your x x account. Let me say x. I still call it Twitter. Go figure. The only thing that happened when X became X is that I got, I got triple X porn bots on my feed. That's it. So I still call it Twitter. Go figure. Gotcha, gotcha. So, uh, so you mentioned the mckelvie rule. I mean, and it's and it's reached this, uh, 3 percent point percentage point rise. And so this is indicating that we're already in a recession, correct. That is correct. In fact, in in January of 2008, the Wall Street Journal interviewed then Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs Ed mckelvie and and asked the same question.

you just asked identical. They said, Hey Ed, this is your rule. Your rules never failed in data back to 1968. As of December 2007, the unemployment rate was 310 of a percentage point off of its lowest point in the last 12 months. Are we in recession now? Listen, when you're Danielle, you can say whatever I want to. I worked on Wall Street. I worked at the Federal Reserve. I've dealt with compliance and sensitivity training and all that stuff. I can say what I want when I want. At the time, however, the Chief Economist at Ed McKelvey said, Well, maybe the rule's not working right this time. In fact, it was. And 366 days after the recession started, the National Bureau of Economic Research backdated the recession to exactly December 2007 when it was triggered. So, it has a perfect track record unless it's different this time. Recession started in October of 2023. That's exactly what Bloomberg Economics came out and said just two weeks ago today. Yeah. So, what is this um so?

like with recessions, every recession doesn't necessarily look like the last one. So, I mean, I remember me personally in 2008, I was about 20 years old, working at a warehouse, had no retirement account, no stock accounts, no properties. And so, I just felt like I was unaffected in a way because I didn't necessarily lose my job. And then, uh, and then also, you know, I just wasn't aware of what was going on. In the f I didn't even, I wasn't aware that the banking system was on the brink of collapse, right? And so, you know, at the time, that was kind of a big deal that Lehman Brothers was about to collapse, sure, yes, yes. And so, uh, what, what, what are you, what are you kind of seeing like, and what do you think this looks like? Is this just like, do you feel like it's going to be like a mild unemployment? I mean, obviously, I'm asking you to predict something, but I mean, what, what do you, what do you think this, this

looks like if if each recession can look different for uh when they happen well you know I mean by the time we got around to call it you know seven eight months in to recession. The unemployment rate was it still wasn't that high. It was it was rising of course. The unemployment unemployment rate is the kind of the the third to last to get the message right. It goes the unemployment rate is the third to last. And then inflation gets the message. And the last one to get the message is the stock market. That's the last one to fall out of bed. So it it it usually goes in that order. But the beginnings of recession four five six seven months in that's not the heat of it um it's a few more months from now that there's the possibility oh whoa there was a credit event you know just last week in the markets. We all woke up on Friday morning and you know by then the the equivalent of the S&P 500 in France was down about 9% from its highs.

world started to say, Oo, that's that's a big enough move that it might affect, oh wait, Us corporate bonds, how'd that happen? So we not the first inkling of of contagion in the air with what happened with the elections in Europe, but in the beginning, you know, my 16-year-old right now is working a summer job in a warehouse. He's not gonna lose his job, that's a good thing, um, so a lot of people are not aware that there's anything wrong with the economy until somebody they know loses their job. And it's typically when things are, when when there's a heightened Awareness on Main Street, that's when we tend to know things. And you know what we picked up in the latest University of Michigan consumer sentiment read was the second fastest three-month decline in income expectations on record. And let me tell you, University of Michigan data goes back into the 70s. So the only, the only bigger move that we'd seen on a three-month basis was in October 1990 when we were in the teeth of

recession. So, to your question, if June of 2024 is when invest is when people on Main Street, people in the in the real economy are like, whoa, I really think that a year from now my inflation, my income, my paycheck's going to be smaller, we're kind of at the aha moment. And this is when things start to get really tricky because rather than the people you don't know who've lost their jobs pulling back on their spending, now we see people who've lost their jobs and people who are worried they're going to lose their jobs pull back on spending. And that's when you get Ripple effects into the US economy. Yeah, yeah, it reminds me of Ronald Reagan's quote where he says, a recession is when your neighbor loses their job, but depression is when you lose yours. And so, hey, I mean there's a reason we all know that saying because it's really true. Yes, yes. And so, with interest rates right now, we are at five and a quarter, five

and a half um. Interest rates have been declining for about 40 years. And then now, many people were projecting that that was the end of that era where um. Interest rates doesn't go lower anymore. However, you know, if we do have some type of crisis, the FED could cut to zero again if they wanted to. I don't know what that does with inflation, but what what's your projection on like long-term interest rates so uh. I I think that I think and I hope and I applaud the potential for Jay Powell who has recognized that zero interest rate policy didn't work. So I'm hoping that no matter how bad things get that we don't have to go back there and that is why this so-called Dot Plot that's released once a quarter by the Federal Reserve has the end of the road ending with I think 3.1% federal funds rate so I like the idea that interest rates have gotten to be so high that we can even reduce them to the same extent that we've reduced them for the past few

recessions and not have to go back to the zero bound. I hope that that's the case. I really do. But I think the message in longer-term interest rates coming down as much as they have off their highs, I think that probably says to us that the risk is there that the Fed's going to have to take more action, lower interest rates to a greater extent than what we would prefer. And what's your view on inflation? I mean, obviously inflation has, I guess, come down, and it depends on who you ask, right? Especially, especially who you listen to. And yeah, it's more like who you listen to because no inflation's come down a lot. So we're expecting that based on what happened with the Consumer Price Index coupled with the Producer Price Index. Most, even the sside economists who want to sell you something, even they're saying that they expect for the Fed's preferred measure, core PCE, to come in at 2.6%. I mean, who to think it when it when

it's reported at the end of June. So I mean I think most people recognize that we're getting really close to the Fed's 2% target. Uh, the question is, do we get all the way to the 2% target and keep going? And people are like, God help us if that's the case, because, you know, then it's undeniable you're in recession or you're in crisis or whatever it happens to be. And everything that we're seeing in terms of the sheer amount of apartment deliveries, the fact that most indicators suggest that home prices have begun to fall, these things are saying, Gee, that biggest chunk of inflation's also going to come under pressure. So the question becomes one of, again, which you originally asked, What's the Fed gonna do when inflation is clearly cascading towards its target? And I go back and say, I hope the answer is not the zero bound. Gotcha, gotcha. That makes sense. Uh, so you mentioned that

the markets are the lies to get out of bed or cap capitulate, and so in this particular cycle, what should retail investors be considering during this time? I mean, because obviously if recession is here, there's a lot of risk. I mean, we have an election as well, who knows what's going to happen right after that, you know? And so, I'm just wondering like what should tell investors be thinking about during this time, especially, you know, you have markets hitting all-time High S&P NASDAQ and such. So, um, yeah, so I'm just curious to get your thoughts on that and things are happening just the way they historically traditionally have happened. So there's nothing that's taking place right now that's off script. It's always G the Federal Reserve finally lowered interest rates, that's when the stock market finally to use the absolutely correct verb capitulates, and it's not usually until then. The fact that we're talking about the election happening at the same time as the First

Rate cut now. That gives me pause. So, if I'm a retail investor, I'm asking myself some pretty hard questions. The first of which is, how much am I comfortable losing? And you know, if I'm in my 20s or I'm in my 30s and I'm in some 401K fund at work and I can ride this thing out, then ride it out. If you feel like you're a Trader and you want to play the market and you don't want to be around for the last five or 10 per upside and you want to head your position, then head your position. But you always have to look within and say, how much am I comfortable losing in order to make the very last of what I'm going to get. And again, this is not Danielle's opinion on the stock market. This is just what history typically dictates. We've lost one and a half million jobs in the last six months. Um, we have gained some part-time positions in their place but not nearly as much. So we have to ask

ourselves the difficult questions. Let's say I lose 30%. Typically, after the FED lowers interest rates, historically it's 32.9%. How comfortable am I losing 32.9% in the risky parts of my portfolio? And once you've answered that question and you know that you're going to ride the stock market back up, as it historically has been the case, however long that happens to take, then you can sit on your allocation or you can take some chips off the table. It's up to what your risk appetite is. Yes, yes, that's good. So I'm looking forward to seeing you speak at the Rule Symposium. And so when Rick has been on my show multiple times, he mentions that he's pretty cash heavy right now, and you have to have capital to be a capitalist, right? And so, I mean, for me personally, I've been looking at reducing position sizes, and I mean you can sit in short-term treasury.

bills at 5% or whatnot, and so, um, I mean, that's, that's kind of just how I've been processing it, instead of trying to like play the markets and timing and such. It's just like, okay, you can get paid to sit right now. And so, that, that's, I mean, how many times can have you been able to say that since December 2008 when the FED first lowered the FED funds rate to the zero bound? How, how many times since then have you been paid to not play? Very seldom. So, I just say you buy the popcorn, I'll buy the beer, we'll sit back, and, and keep our Capital, keep our powder dry, and we'll wait for that entry point. Yep, yep, that's true. So, uh, where can people find more, more about you and the work you do at Qi Research? So, come to De Martino boo. sub.com. Uh, you know, once you become a daily feather reader, I don't have to explain another word. It, it's

entertaining, and it's edifying. It's just, it's a great inexpensive way to get your toe wet, and begin to understand what Qi research is all about. And if you don't already follow me on Twitter, please do so ATD Martino Booth. All right, all right, thank you, Daniel, for coming on. Appreciate it. Thank you for having me today.

WILL THE FED AVERT A GREAT DEPRESSION 5.0?  | Danielle DiMartino Booth via the Money Level Show

Danielle DiMartino Booth is CEO & Chief Strategist for QI Research, a research and analytics firm.  Prior to QI Research, DiMartino Booth spent nine years at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas where she served as Advisor to President Richard W. Fisher throughout the financial crisis.  She is the author of FED UP: An Insider’s Take on Why the Federal Reserve is Bad for America (Portfolio, Feb 2017).

#economy #federalreserve #macro #business #finance 


Danielle DiMartino Booth

그림자 금융 시스템 규제에 대한 연방 준비 은행의 초점

그림자 금융 시스템은 이제 기존 은행 시스템보다 더 크고 강력해져 연방준비제도이사회가 규제의 우선순위를 정하고 있습니다.

섀도 뱅킹 시스템에 대한 이러한 집중으로 인해 연준은 실물 경제의 활동을 간과할 가능성이 있습니다.

마르티노 보가 그림자 금융 시스템의 규모와 영향력 증가에 대응하는 중앙은행의 현재 과제에 대해 설명합니다.

섀도 뱅킹 시스템 규제의 중요성

그림자 금융 시스템의 규모는 240조 달러로 눈에 보이는 기존 은행 시스템을 큰 폭으로 초과하기 때문에 연방준비제도이사회가 규제의 우선순위를 정하게 되었습니다.

섀도 뱅킹 시스템의 규제되지 않은 특성은 금융 불평등에 기여하고 심각한 위험을 초래하여 잠재적으로 대공황에 버금가는 규모의 위기를 초래할 수 있습니다.

섀도 뱅킹 시스템을 규제하는 데 초점을 맞추는 연방준비제도이사회는 미국의 장기적인 안정과 안녕을 위해 매우 중요합니다.

보이지 않는 금융 위험: 민간 자본의 어두운 세계

규제를 받지 않는 비은행 기관의 자산은 240조 달러에 달하며, 이는 규제 대상인 은행 시스템을 능가하는 규모입니다.

국제적인 규제와 감독의 부재는 특히 현재와 같은 경기 침체기에 잠재적인 위험과 정책 오류에 대한 우려를 불러일으킵니다.

미래 세대를 보호하기 위해 민간 자본 세계의 금융 활동을 음지에서 끌어내야 할 필요성이 커지고 있습니다.

규제되지 않은 헤지펀드가 개인 투자자에게 미치는 영향

연사는 헤지펀드의 규제되지 않은 상태와 개인 투자자에게 미치는 영향에 대해 우려를 표명합니다.

그들은 '포효하는 키티'가 헤지펀드에 제대로 맞서지 못한 것과 헤지펀드에 대한 규제가 계속되고 있는 것에 대해 논의합니다.

또한 현재의 경기 침체를 나타내는 맥켈비 법칙의 사용에 대해서도 다루며 경기 침체가 이미 시작되었다는 연사의 견해를 강조합니다.

경기 침체는 개인에게 미치는 영향이 매우 다양하며, 특히 초기에는 상대적으로 영향을 받지 않는 사람들도 있습니다.

경기 침체의 일반적인 진행 과정은 실업률 상승, 인플레이션 상승, 주식 시장 하락으로 이어집니다.

미시간 대학교의 소비자 심리 지수는 최근 소득 기대치가 급격히 하락한 것으로 나타나 경제 문제에 대한 인식이 커지고 있음을 보여줍니다.

잠재적 경기 침체가 경제에 미치는 영향

향후 경기 침체에 대한 기대감으로 사람들이 지출을 줄이고 있으며, 이는 미국 경제에 파급 효과를 미칠 수 있습니다.

연방준비제도이사회가 금리를 제로로 낮추지 않고도 상황을 관리할 수 있을 것이라는 희망이 있지만 장기 금리의 하락은 더 중대한 조치가 필요할 수 있음을 시사합니다.

다양한 의견에도 불구하고 핵심 PCE 인플레이션 지표가 2.

6%를 기록할 것이라는 예상이 있습니다.

인플레이션과 주식 시장에 대한 전망

연준의 인플레이션 목표치 2%에 근접할 가능성이 높아지면서 경기침체 또는 위기 가능성에 대한 우려가 높아져 연준의 대응에 대한 불확실성이 커지고 있습니다.

개인 투자자는 특히 시장이 사상 최고치를 기록하고 현재 경제 상황이 어느 정도 예측 가능한 패턴을 따르고 있는 만큼 자신의 위험 감내 능력과 투자 전략을 고려하는 것이 좋습니다.

역사적으로 볼 때 연준이 금리를 인하하면 주식 시장은 항복하는 경향이 있으며, 투자자는 잠재적 손실에 대한 편안함을 평가하게 됩니다.

투자 전략 및 리스크 관리 논의

미연준 금리 변화의 과거 영향을 고려할 때 잠재적인 포트폴리오 손실에 대한 편안함 수준을 평가하는 것이 중요합니다.

현재 시장에서는 현금 위주의 포지션을 유지하고 투자 규모를 줄이는 것이 신중한 접근 방식이 될 수 있습니다.

자본을 보존하고 시장에 진입할 적절한 기회를 기다리는 동시에 투자 인사이트를 얻을 수 있는 교육 리소스를 탐색하는 데 초점을 맞추는 것이 좋습니다.