New Questions for Regional Banks
发布时间 2023-04-02 15:00:00 来源
摘要
If a bank has to make a statement about its safety and soundness, that’s usually a bad sign. Sultan Meghji is the former Chief Innovation Officer of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and a professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. Ricky Mulvey caught up with Meghji to discuss: - Where Silicon Valley Bank and the FDIC faltered in the lead-up to the bank run - Ripple effects from the recent bank runs that investors should consider - Hindenburg’s report on Block - How to pack a "go bag" for your savings Companies mentioned: JPM, SIVBQ, FRC, FIZN, SQ, SBUX, ORCL Host: Ricky Mulvey Guest: Sultan Meghji Engineer: Tim Sparks
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Community banks, regional banks play an incredibly important part of the U.S. economy. Because the businesses they support account for well over 80% of new job creation, well over 80% of new capital infusion. I mean, it's not even close.
社区银行和地区银行在美国经济中起着极为重要的作用。因为它们所支持的企业创造了超过80％的新工作机会和超过80％的新资本注入。我的意思是，这个差距不是一般的大。
What's happened now is the logic has now changed. And so if I'm a small business owner, instead of looking at the local bank or the local credit union, I now realize, well, if I'm successful, I'm in trouble if something happens that bank.
现在发生的是逻辑已经改变。如果我是小型企业主，现在不再考虑当地银行或信用社了。我现在意识到，如果我成功了，那么如果发生了什么意外，那家银行就会遇到麻烦。
I'm Chris Hill and that's Salt and Meggie, the former chief innovation officer at the FDIC. Today, he teaches financial technology and cybersecurity at Duke University. Ricky Mulvey caught up with Meggie last Tuesday to talk about what happened behind the scenes before the collapse of Silicon Valley bank, how to pack a go bag for your savings and new questions for regional banks.
我是克里斯·希尔，这位是前联邦存款保险公司首席创新官盐和梅吉。今天，他在杜克大学教授金融技术和网络安全。上周二，瑞奇·马尔维采访了梅吉，讨论了硅谷银行崩溃前的幕后情况，如何为储蓄打包一个出发袋，以及地区银行面临的新问题。
Before we dive into the Silicon Valley bank collapse and the effects of all that that are continuing to play out, can you talk a little bit about the relationship between banks and the FDIC for someone who might not be savvy on it?
在我们深入讨论硅谷银行破产以及其后续影响之前，您能不能简单谈谈银行和联邦存款保险公司之间的关系，以便不太了解此事的人可以理解？
Sure. So the FDIC actually has two jobs. One is to run an insurance fund, the deposit insurance fund, which is what pays for the up to $250,000 current checking account thing that we all see on our banks. And the second is they have about 3,000 bank examiners and support staff and they examine a jishai of 4,000 banks directly. But then the second thing they do is they operate the technical infrastructure and a lot of the examination processes for the other federal bank regulators. So if there is a bank examiner walking around your bank making sure that it's being run correctly, most likely it's an FDIC person using FDIC technology.
当然。实际上，美国联邦存款保险公司有两个职责。其一是运营一个保险基金，即存款保险基金，这是支付我们所看到的最高25万美元的活期支票账户的保险。 其二是拥有约3,000名银行审查员和支持人员，他们直接检查了大约4,000家银行。但第二件事是他们管理技术基础架构和其他联邦银行监管机构的许多检查流程。 因此，如果有一位银行审计员在您的银行周围走来走去，确保其正确运营，很有可能是FDIC人员使用FDIC技术。
The bank examiners have been probably busy lately with Silicon Valley bank.
银行稽核员最近可能一直忙于对硅谷银行进行检查。
I'm a little confused on the middle part of the story there. So everything is fine. It's Silicon Valley bank up until about a month ago. Then there's a middle part where everybody panics because they write down some bonds. I don't know if anything else happened there. Now there's a bank run. The government ensures deposits above 250K and now first citizens bank owns Silicon Valley bank. What happened in the middle? What am I missing with that story?
我对那个故事的中间部分有点困惑。一切都很好，直到一个月前，硅谷银行出了些问题。然后有一个中间部分，人人都惊慌失措，因为他们写下了一些债券。我不知道那里还有没有发生其他事情。现在有了一个银行挤兑。政府保证超过250K的存款，现在第一公民银行拥有了硅谷银行。中间发生了什么事？我在那个故事中错过了什么？
Well can I correct your structure just a little bit? You can always correct my structure. So the way to think about it is Silicon Valley bank grew tremendously over its 40 year history especially in the last five or six years and crossed a couple of different thresholds of size to the point that they ended up being one of the top 20 banks in the United States.
嗯，我能稍微帮你改一下句子结构吗？你也可以随时纠正我的结构。Silicon Valley银行在其40年的历史中，特别是在过去的五六年间，蓬勃发展，并跨越了一些规模门槛，最终成为了美国排名前20的银行之一。你可以这样理解。
In 2019 data started showing that they weren't managing their investments very well. And that was well understood to the point that the Federal Reserve, I believe, sent on multiple notes saying, hey, maybe you should look at this. It's kind of one of those hurled over the wall and hope they fix it kind of thing.
在2019年，数据开始显示他们并没有有效管理自己的投资。这一点是广为人知的，以至于我相信美联储曾多次发送通知说，“嘿，也许你们应该看看这个问题”。这有点像扔了个问题过去，希望他们能解决的意思。
And that was fine as long as rates stayed low. And then the minute rates started going up, that investment portfolio went from being a concentration risk to now a liability. Their loans were worth less than the worth more than the assets they were against. And that started last year. And the regulators were aware of that. They didn't really do too much. They're like, oh, they'll figure it out. There was a letter in December of 2022 that said, hey, it's getting bad. Maybe you guys should do something about it.
这是在利率保持低位的情况下是没问题的。但是一旦利率开始升高，这个投资组合就从集中风险变成了负债。他们的贷款价值比抵押资产的价值低。这开始于去年，监管机构也知道这个问题。但是他们没有太多行动，只是说：哦，他们自己会解决的。直到2022年12月有一封信提醒：情况很糟糕了，也许你们应该采取措施了。
And then it kind of spiraled out of control because somebody actually started noticing that the bank balance she was pretty terrible. And Silicon Valley bank realized they needed to raise some money. They needed to put more assets on the books, Goldman Sachs apparently was hired to do that and completely failed to get anything good, mostly because of bad press that was coming out around the same time. And this is about a week before the bank run occurred.
然后它有点失控了，因为有人注意到她的银行余额非常糟糕。硅谷银行意识到他们需要筹集一些资金。他们需要在账面上增加更多的资产，显然聘请了高盛公司来完成这项任务，但由于同时出现的坏消息，高盛公司完全没能做出任何好的成果。而这发生在银行危机发生前约一周。
And then on Thursday, you know, six different things all happened at the same time that led to that middle part that you're talking about. And that's really how we, you know, so to me, the middle part of your story goes from 2019 until that Thursday. That's fair.
然后就是在星期四，你知道的，有六件不同的事情同时发生，导致了你提到的中间部分。那确实是我们的经历，所以对我来说，你的故事的中间部分是从2019年到那个星期四。这是公平的。
I think to the outsider perspective, the depositors and the investors watching Silicon Valley bank, there wasn't, they were being told by the bank's leadership, hey, there's nothing to worry about. We're one of the safest banks in the world. We're fine over here. There's a fine line. And I worry that Silicon Valley bank's leadership fell on the wrong side of this between keeping a, you know, stiff upper lip and, oh, everything's going to be fine. And the opposite being true. And Silicon Valley bank in a lot of ways had a culture far more like a startup or venture capital from our P firm and less like a bank.
我认为对于观察硅谷银行的存款人和投资者，他们听到银行领导告诉他们：“嘿，不用担心，我们是世界上最安全的银行之一，我们这里没问题。”然而，这里有一条很细微的线。我担心硅谷银行的领导者可能没有掌握住保持严肃和“一切都会好”的细微差别，而事实却恰恰相反。硅谷银行的文化在很多方面更像一个初创公司或从业务资本公司，而不太像一个传统银行。
You know, if a bank has to make a statement about their safety and soundness, that's usually a really terrible thing. The other thing that happened is because so many of their customers just kept putting money in the same checking accounts, you know, there were people, there was, I think, 10 accounts accounted for $25 billion of deposits.
你知道，如果一家银行需要发表一份关于他们安全和稳健的声明，那通常是一件非常糟糕的事情。另一件发生的事情是，由于很多客户一直把钱存放在同一个支票账户中，你懂的，有些人的10个账户占据了250亿美元的存款。
Can you imagine having a bank account with a billion dollars in it? That, I mean, I obviously am, but like that's not great financial management on the part of the companies in question or the people in question. So it's a, it was a kind of a perfect storm of bad things. I think you can play a lot of blame on the bank's management for not being clear about what was going on and not enforcing more stringent controls internally.
你能想象有一个账户里有十亿美元的银行账户吗？我是说，显然我在想象，但这不是公司或个人良好的财务管理。因此，这是一场非常糟糕的事情。我认为银行的管理层需要承担很多责任，因为他们没有清楚地说明正在发生的事情，也没有在内部实施更严格的控制。
But you also have a fair amount of blame, I think, to go on the regulatory community for not doing something about it. They saw this coming and apparently didn't really do that much to stop it.
我认为，你们也有相当一部分的责任要归咎于监管机构，因为他们没有采取任何措施来解决这个问题。他们早已看到了这个问题的来临，但似乎没有采取太多行动来阻止它发生。
One other way the regulatory community is getting a lot of attention is that this idea that all banks now have this implicit insurance, especially regional banks. So they may not be covered by being a systemically important bank. However, small banks are now essentially being told to my understanding by the Treasury and the FDIC that your deposits are safe, even above 250K without paying necessarily into that insurance fund. What are the consequences of this implicit insurance who pays for it is this worthy of attention?
监管部门现在受到了很多关注的另一种方式是所有银行现在都拥有这种隐性保险的想法，尤其是地区银行。因此，它们可能不会被视为系统重要银行而受到覆盖。然而，据我了解，财政部和联邦存款保险公司现在在实质上告诉小银行，即使不必向那个保险基金缴纳，你的存款也是安全的，甚至超过了25万美元。这种隐性保险的后果是什么？谁会为它付款？这值得关注吗？
Well, it's an interesting point that you've burned out because since really 2008, the global systemically important American banks have had that. It's been a very implicit thing and there's a very small list. I'll use JP Morgan as an example. It doesn't really matter how much money is in your JP Morgan account because it's so deeply coupled to the treasury of the United States, you're insured because if JP Morgan goes under, the US government goes under, right?
嗯，對於您焦躁的狀態，我會認為真自從2008年之後，全球具有系統性重要性的美國銀行已經有了。這是一個非常內隱的事情，內含了一個非常小的列表。拿JP Morgan做個例子，您在JP Morgan的帳戶裏有多少錢其實不重要，因為它與美國財政部的關係太深了，所以您被保障了，因為如果JP Morgan破產，美國政府就會破產。對吧？
This non-voted on, non-policy, outstretched, authoritarian authority shift that says regional banks now get the same thing is in lieu of Congress acting in logically and following the law that the FDIC cannot say this. It is a violation of existing law for them to say this.
这个未经投票、非政策性的、无限制的、专制的权力转移，它说地区银行现在得到了相同的待遇，是代替国会理性行事并遵守法律，即联邦存款保险公司不能这样说的。他们这样说是违反现有法律的。
Now what the Treasury Secretary and the rest of the phoenix, this is like the financial regulatory leadership of the United States have decided to do, is they list the financial leadership of the United States and we will categorize any bank as systemically important to make sure that we do this because we don't want a bank run. That's where we are now.
现在美国财政部长和凤凰城的其他人，也就是美国金融监管领袖决定要做的就是将美国金融领导者列出来，并将任何银行归类为系统重要性，以确保我们这样做，因为我们不希望发生银行跑光。这就是我们现在的情况。
Now, it needs, I think, to kind of dot I cross T correctly, the Congress to vote on. That's part one. Part two is the insurance fund cannot cover this full stop. The insurance fund actually, as of today, is basically zeroed out between signature and silicon valley bank between what they already had to pay out when the runs happened and when they were shut down. But then also the liabilities of Silicon Valley bank that are now owned by the FDIC. I think they've got about 15 billion you left. Three weeks ago, they had about 130 billion. That's basically done.
现在，我认为需要仔细打点I、横跨T字。这需要国会进行投票。这是第一部分。第二部分是保险基金无法完全覆盖。事实上，保险基金今天已经基本上被用尽了，签名和硅谷银行之间已经支付了什么，以及当他们关闭时已经支付出去的费用，还有现在被FDIC拥有的硅谷银行的负债。我认为他们还剩下约150亿美元。三周前，他们还剩下约1300亿美元。基本上已经无法再用了。
They can't afford another run, which is I think why first republic hasn't been put into receivership personally because of the deposits. The third piece of it is the US government fundamentally has to stop these deposit runs from happening and has to keep American dollars in as close control of the US system as possible because of other ripple effects this would have.
我认为，他们无法承受再次出现资金流失，这就是第一共和国没有因为存款问题而被扣押的原因。其次，美国政府必须基本上阻止这些资金流失的发生，并且尽可能地控制美元，以免产生其他连锁反应。
For example, a taxes, this is a great example of something. Tether, to go into the crypto universe just a little bit, picked up $9 billion of US from US dollars in the last month and a half. If all of a sudden $100 billion leaves the American banking system, which only has 17 trillion to begin with, and let's say a trillion that goes into crypto, you fundamentally weaken the balance sheet of the United States and the US government is doing everything it can to keep that from happening.
比如说，税收，这就是一个很好的例子。谈到加密货币领域中的代币，Tether在过去一个半月中从美元获得了90亿美元。如果突然有1000亿美元离开了美国银行系统，这个原本只有17万亿美元的系统会受到极大的削弱。假设有1万亿美元进入了加密货币，这就会进一步削弱美国的资产负债表。美国政府正在竭尽全力防止这种情况的发生。
I want to circle back on something you just said. You said that FDIC could not afford another bank run right now. The deposit insurance fund, if you do the math between the checks they had, they're having to write for signature in Silicon Valley bank, wiped out 85-90% of the deposit insurance fund. Last time that happened was 2008 and what happened was the Federal Reserve and the Treasury got together and said, well, we'll just back it by the full faith and credit of the United States government and they fed it in there and that it spent a few years upping the assessments that the banks were charged to then re-grow that. You can actually, it's published.
我想回顾一下刚才你所说的话。你说美国联邦存款保险公司现在负担不起另一次银行挤兑。如果你计算一下他们要为在硅谷银行签署的支票付款所需的金额，这将消耗掉85-90％的存款保险基金。上次发生这种情况是在2008年，那时联邦储备委员会和财政部会合起来说，我们将通过美国政府的全面信任和信用来保证这笔款项，并将其注入其中。他们花了几年时间提高银行所收取的费用，以重新恢复这个基金。这实际上已经公开发布了。
You can actually go and look at that curve where it was very high, 2008 went to zero, went into negative actually, and then crawled its way back up until three weeks ago. One of the lessons seems to be that if the FDIC comes knocking at your door, perhaps they need to knock twice if they ignore your first call.
你实际上可以去看一下那个曲线，它曾经非常高，2008年归零了，实际上还变成了负数，然后爬回来直到三周前。其中一个教训似乎是，如果联邦存款保险公司来敲你的门，也许他们需要再敲两次，如果他们忽略了你的第一次电话。
What do you think are the lessons being learned from the Silicon? Or what are the lessons from the Silicon Valley bank collapse? Do you think bankers and regulators are learning them? No. Right. Simple. I think if you watched the Senate banking committee here in today, you saw the old guard preaching the old ways, the politicians giving their talking points, but fundamentally it's not actually changing anything.
你认为从硅谷中能够学到什么教训？或者美国银行业崩溃有哪些教训？你认为银行家和监管者已经学到了吗？没有。对。简单。我认为如果你观看了今天参议院银行委员会的情况，你会看到老一代官员在传授旧的方式，政治家们在说他们的观点，但从根本上讲，实际上没有改变任何事情。
They spent a lot of time today talking about the tools at their disposal. In fact, is they had the data, they had the tools and they weren't acting the right way. When I think about innovating and transforming and keeping things like this from happening, again, I think about three things. I think about the technology, I think about the process, and I think about the people.
今天他们花了很多时间谈论手边的工具。事实上，如果他们拥有数据和工具，但却没有采取正确的行动。当我思考创新、转型和防止这种情况再次发生时，我会考虑三件事情。我会考虑技术、过程和人员。
On the technology side, there's a big tech upgrade needed. They need to be able to be getting data in real time. They need to be analyzing it real time. They need to be doing a far better job of risk management on these bank balance sheets. That's across the regulatory system. The second is the processes that the organizations use need to be far better.
从技术方面来看，还需要进行大规模的技术升级。银行需要能够实时获得数据，并进行实时分析。他们需要在银行资产负债表上更好地管理风险。这适用于整个监管体系。此外，组织所使用的流程也需要更加完善。
For example, if I was the chair of the FDIC, I would require any bank in the United States, their chairman to call me, literally pick up the phone, call me, and tell me if you see more than 1% of your deposits leave in a 24-hour period, or if the aggregate over three days is 2% or something like that, right? If we knew that, that would fundamentally alter how we think about that institution, how we think about the management, etc.
比如说，如果我是FDIC的主席，我会要求美国的任何一家银行的董事长打电话给我，真正地打电话给我，并告诉我，如果你看到在24小时内有超过1％的存款离开，或者如果三天内总量达到2％或类似的情况，对吧？如果我们知道了这些，那将从根本上改变我们对该机构的看法，我们对管理层的看法等等。
For three is the people involved. There are roughly 4,000 bank examiners in the United States, the vast majority of them work for the FDIC. Those people should be held accountable to ensure that they aren't just sending memos. They're saying, listen, your balance sheet is off by X. Rates are going to continue to go up for the next year, probably. We're looking at a target of five, let's say, if that happens, you have two days to come back to me and tell me what that does to your balance sheet. If you can't do that, then great.
涉及到三个人。美国大约有4000名银行审查员，绝大部分工作于FDIC。这些人应该承担责任，以确保他们不仅仅是发出备忘录。他们应该说，听着，你的资产负债表有问题，利率可能会在未来一年中继续上涨。我们考虑目标是5个百分点，如果发生这种情况，你有两天的时间回复我，告诉我这对你的资产负债表意味着什么。如果无法办到，那就太好了。
I'm going to tag you on your examination and you're going to have to really come to the principal's office and tell me what the heck you're actually doing. The fact is, is none of those three things that have been happening.
我要在你的考试上给你打标签，然后你必须真正地来一趟校长办公室，告诉我你到底在做什么。事实是，那三件事情都没有发生。
Going back to the regional banks, if you're a small and a medium-sized business, and I think a lot of them are thinking this right now, why would you do business with a regional bank if you know it's not systemically important? Well, now the logic that you would use as a small business owner is different, right?
回到地区银行，如果你是一个小型或中型企业，我认为很多人现在都在考虑这个问题，如果你知道这个银行并不具备系统重要性，为什么还要与地区银行做生意呢？现在，你作为一个小型企业主使用的逻辑是不同的，对吧？
Up until the last month or so, generally speaking, the big banks were better for consumers, the small and regional banks were better for businesses. They had more organized products and services that made more sense. They were a little closer. If you were a mainstream business, it was easier to work with a mainstream bank because they understood, you got a car dealer, you got a coffee shop, whatever.
在最近一个月左右，一般来说，大银行对消费者更好，小型和区域性银行对企业更好。它们有更加有条理的产品和服务，更加合理。它们离得近一些。如果你是主流企业，与主流银行合作更容易，因为他们了解你有汽车经销商、咖啡店或其他企业。
There's a bank through doors down. It's an easier thing. It's easier to get lending and credit facilities without some guy in New York deciding that you aren't cool enough or Silicon Valley deciding you're not cool enough. Community banks, regional banks play an incredibly important part of the U.S. economy because the businesses they support account for well over 80% of new job creation, well over 80% of new capital infusion. It's not even close.
"这儿的那扇门后有一家银行，这样做更方便。这样就不需要有位纽约的人决定你不够酷或者硅谷决定你不够酷，那么就更容易获得贷款和信贷服务。社区银行和区域银行在美国经济中扮演着极为重要的角色，因为它们所支持的企业创造了80%以上的新就业机会和新的资本投入，这一数字令人震惊。"
What's happened now is the logic has now changed. If I'm a small business owner, instead of looking at the local bank or the local credit union, I now realize, well, if I'm successful, I'm in trouble if something happens to that bank. I'm a calculus of where I put my money and how I operate is radically different.
现在发生的是逻辑已经改变了。如果我是一个小企业主，我不再只看本地的银行或信用社了。现在我意识到，如果我成功了，如果那家银行出了问题，我就麻烦了。我把我的钱放在哪里和我的经营方式已经完全不同了。
I might keep some deposits in a community bank, but I also have an account with a G-SIM. We're going to see a significant recalibration of deposits. On the consumer side, it's already 85% within, I think, seven banks that's going to go well over 90% I think here by the end of the year. We're going to see a lot of pressure on the banking system.
我可能会把一些存款放在社区银行，但我也有一个 G-SIM 账户。我们将看到存款的重大重新校准。对于消费者来说，在我看来，现在已经有85％的存款集中在七家银行中，到年底我认为这个比例将超过90％。银行系统将面临很大的压力。
There was already a tremendous amount of pressure on the community and regional system because also, no matter what happens in Congress, there will be more examination, more regulatory compliance expense on the regional banks and mid-sized banks. That will continue to push on those institutions. We used to have about, in 1987, I think there were 27,000 banks in the United States. Now there are about 4,500. I would not be all surprised for us to break 3,000 within the next five years.
社区和地区系统已经面临着巨大的压力，因为无论国会发生什么，地区银行和中型银行都将面临更多的审查和监管合规费用。这将继续对这些机构施加压力。在1987年，美国大约有27,000家银行，而现在只有大约4,500家。在未来五年内，我不会感到惊讶，如果我们的银行数量跌破3,000家。
With more consolidation, is these large? Consolidation. I'm also not convinced there won't be a couple more failures. Before we get through the end of the year, but I think there are about 15 or 20 banks that I'm really staring at hard to figure out how they manage their balance sheet. I think we'll see consolidation. That's always been the main driver of that, but we'll see more of that too.
随着整合的增多，这些大型银行还是能够继续存在的吗？整合本身并不能保证不会再有几个银行出现倒闭的情况。在年底之前，我认为有大约15到20家银行的资产负债表管理方式非常值得关注。我认为我们会看到更多的整合发生。这一直是推动整合的主要因素，但我们也会看到更多这样的情况发生。
Any parts of the story that maybe we haven't gotten to or the second or third order effects that people aren't discussing enough? Yeah, I think commercial real estate is something to pay a lot of attention to right now. I think the bonds to the side of the story is something to pay a lot of attention to right now.
故事中可能还有一些我们没有提到的部分，或者人们没有充分讨论的二三级影响，你认为有吗？是的，我认为商业房地产现在是需要非常关注的事情。我认为故事旁边的债券也是需要非常关注的事情。
I think as we get through, as we go conceivably into this recession, later this year, which seems to be a fate of complete at this point, there are a lot of banks that have made a bunch of investments that are now worth less than they need to be in order for the banks to survive. They're going to be looking for the Fed to balance the drop-off in rates and the re-activation more quantitative easing that whole story over the next, let's say, nine to 12 months, I think is going to be far more important than anything we're talking about right now.
我认为随着我们度过这场即将到来的经济衰退，到了今年晚些时候，这似乎已经成为必然，很多银行都进行了一些投资，这些投资现在都比他们为了生存所需要的价值低。他们将会寻求美联储平衡利率下跌和更多的量化宽松，这整个故事在未来的大约九到十二个月内，我认为将比我们现在谈论的任何事情都更加重要。
I mean, with respect to the recession coming, I feel like a recession has been six months away now for about the past 18 months. We'll see how that continues.
我是说，就经济衰退的问题而言，我感觉过去18个月里，衰退已经距离我们6个月了。我们会看看接下来会发生什么。
In a previous interview, I've heard you talk about essentially, if you're an individual, you're worried about these bank collapses, you can pack it to go bag for your savings. I'm hoping you can share with the Motley Full Audience how one can do that.
在之前的一次采访中，我听到您说过，如果您是个人，担心银行倒闭，您可以为您的储蓄准备一个随时带走的包。我希望您能与Motley Full的听众分享如何做到这一点。
So it's really easy. I always keep a clean bank account with far less than whatever the depository insurance number is at a g-sub. Just one that I know isn't going to fail. I always have a clean credit card. I always keep them all separate. Use them just enough they don't get shut down. They basically create a parallel, siloed financial infrastructure. That is absolutely critical now because I think I'm fairly well-quoted.
这很容易。我总是保持银行账户干净整洁，远低于g-sub的存款保险数额，只开一个我确定不会倒闭的账户。我总是保持信用卡的干净整洁，而且把它们都分开使用，用的时候只用的够多而不会被注销。实际上，它们创建了一个平行的、隔离的金融基础设施。这在现在绝对是至关重要的，因为我被引用过的话相当有说服力。
I think there are only two banks in the United States that I think are fully cyber-sacrificing the cybersecurity correctly and managing that correctly. You've got to worry about ransomware. To me, there are two levels of concern. One is, can I pay my bills today? Can I get a cup of coffee? Can I buy my groceries? Pay my electric bill, whatever.
我认为在美国只有两家银行能够正确地实施网络安全和管理，避免网络威胁。人们需要担心勒索软件的攻击。在我看来，有两个层次的担忧。其中之一是，我今天能否支付我的账单？我能否买一杯咖啡？能否购买食品杂货？支付我的电费等等。
The second order is, is the institution and the structure itself I'm operating inside of something that I can rely on long-term? I worry tremendously about raising the debt ceiling because that will impact the value of the US dollar, which then value credit ratings, etc. You go down that list.
第二个问题是，我所处的机构和结构本身是否是我可以长期依靠的东西？我非常担心提高债务上限，因为这将影响美元的价值，进而影响信用评级等等。你可以一直往下列举。
At some point, it is entirely possible two years from now that I will find a way to operate in a non-banking infrastructure that is independent of the US dollar. Just because I'm not 100% certain that a silly political fight in DC won't devalue the US dollar so much that it becomes an inaccessible payments infrastructure for me.
可能在两年后的某个时候，我会寻找一种不依赖美元的非银行基础设施来开展业务。因为我并不完全确定华盛顿的荒谬政治斗争不会让美元贬值到一个我无法使用的支付基础设施。
I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you. What are the two banks that you think are doing cybersecurity correctly? Or can you not say? I never name those two. Fair enough, we'll chat after the program.
如果我不问你，我会做得很糟糕。你认为哪两家银行在进行网络安全方面做得正确？或者你不能说吗？我从不透露这两个。好的，节目后我们再聊。
Speaking of financial regulation, Binance is in a lot of trouble in non-bank institutions. They have allegedly encouraged customers to use VPNs for tool-private networks to circumvent trading restrictions. Both in the United States and China, they have hit a hat trick in my opinion by angering the US commodity futures trading commission, the IRS, and the Chinese government.
说到金融监管，Binance在非银行机构方面遇到了很多麻烦。据说他们鼓励客户使用VPN来避开交易限制。在美国和中国，他们让我觉得三个问题一起出现，惹怒了美国商品期货交易委员会、国内税务部门和中国政府。
What are the laws that Binance was allegedly helping those customers circumvent? I mean, it's an incredible list of laws that they are alleged to have violated. On the people's Republic of China side, it's basically anything related to crypto and anything related to a Chinese PRC citizen doing banking outside of the PRC. It's the laundry list. On the US government side, it's everything from tax evasion to money laundering to facilitating the financing of terrorism. I mean, you just go down the list. It's an incredible list.
那么，Binance据称帮助那些客户规避哪些法律呢？我是说，他们据称违反的法律清单太长了。在中华人民共和国方面，基本上与加密货币有关的所有事情以及中国公民在中国境外进行银行业务的任何事情都算。这是一份详尽的清单。在美国政府方面，涉及从逃税到洗钱到协助资助恐怖主义的所有事情。你只需要看下这个清单，就会发现它太长了。
By the way, it's not just the IRS, right? I think there's more to come on the Binance story. And certainly, if what we're seeing, if you take what has been accused of doing as it relates to the PRC and you take what they've accused of doing to the United States, there's a bit of overlap in that Venn diagram. I'd be curious how much bigger the one circle that surrounds them all actually is. But it does, to me, say, Binance is probably one of the riskiest organizations right now to do something with whether you're a US citizen or not. I mean, if you can upset the US and PRC government at the same time, I mean, good luck.
顺便说一下，不只是税务局，对吧？我认为Binance的故事还有更多的内容要出现。如果我们看看他们被控的和中华人民共和国有关的行为以及被指控反对美国的行为之间的重叠部分，那么这幅韦恩图中的一个圆可能会更大。但对我来说，这表明，无论你是不是美国公民，现在与Binance进行交易可能就是最高风险的企业之一。我的意思是，如果你能同时惹恼美国和中华人民共和国政府，祝你好运。
I'm curious what the shallow gravy will eventually be found in. Organizationally, I mean. Binance claims that it was their angels, volunteers who were helping customers circumvent trading restrictions. These are folks on Discord, Telegram, not tied to the company.
我很好奇这个浅色的肉汁最终会在哪里被找到。组织上，我是这个意思。Binance声称这是他们的天使，志愿者帮助客户绕过交易限制。这些人在Discord、Telegram上，不与公司有联系。
Looking at your Twitter, I think you disagree with that claim from Binance. You know, I have to admit having to agree of personal impact here that I should disclose. A quote unquote volunteer army related to a specific crypto project recently tried to deepfake me and use my voice to shill for a product that is currently being sued by a US regulator. And so these volunteer armies used by various crypto projects or crypto companies, it is, I think, going to become out very clearly that they are not independent at all. And they're funded, you know, one degree or another, directly taking strategic direction, et cetera, et cetera.
看了你的推特后，我觉得你不同意Binance的主张。我必须承认，出于个人影响的原因，我同意需要透露一些信息。最近，一个所谓的志愿者军团与特定加密项目有关，他们试图用深度伪造技术模仿我，并利用我的声音进行产品推广，这个产品目前正在被美国监管机构起诉。这些志愿军这种用于各种加密项目或加密公司中，我认为很明显地，它们根本不独立。它们受到资助，在不同程度上直接接受战略指导等等。
It's sort of like saying, if you see an influencer on social media, like, let's say, on TikTok, selling for brand X, of course, there's a financial relationship there. Of course, there's, you know, they're doing that on purpose. Maybe they're doing it to establish a bonafide is maybe they're doing it because they're getting some crypto from one hand wallet to another hand wallet, right? That is an entirely, that is entirely operating in this market. And so to me, that is a weak argument. And frankly, one that is going to be very easy to prove that it's a weak argument.
这有点像是说，如果你在社交媒体上看到像TikTok这样的影响者在卖品牌X的产品，那肯定是有财务关系存在的。当然，他们是有目的地这么做的。也许他们这么做是为了证明他们的真实性，也可能是因为他们从一个钱包转到另一个钱包中得到了一些加密货币，对吧？这完全是在这个市场运作。对我来说，这是一个薄弱的论点，而且实际上很容易证明它是一个薄弱的论点。
I got another dumb question for you. I can bet on whether or not an NBA team will win the championship with a futures contract, with a gambling company. I can bet on the price of oil a year or two from now. And I can bet on a company's stock price. Why does the US commodity futures trading commission, why don't they want me to bet on the price of cryptocurrencies?
我有另一个蠢问题问你。我可以通过与赌博公司签订期货合同，在NBA球队是否会夺冠上下赌注。我可以押注未来一两年的石油价格。我也可以押注一个公司的股票价格。那为什么美国商品期货交易委员会不想让我押注加密货币的价格呢？
Oh, such a great question, Ricky. You should ask them. I do not work for the CFTC. Probably the only thing the good thing came out of that is their argument about Litecoin and Eath and Bitcoin, not being securities, which I think was correct. But the fact is the US government is having what I call a Chinese Communist Party moment. They want to control and govern all financial activity.
哦，这是一个非常好的问题，Ricky。你应该问问他们。我不是CFTC的员工。或许唯一好的事情是，他们关于莱特币，以太币和比特币不属于证券的争论，我认为是正确的。但事实是，美国政府正在经历我所说的中国共产党时刻。他们想控制和管理所有的金融活动。
You are allowed to gamble because there's legal framework under which that operates that you cannot technically violate. And it took decades and decades for that to be created. The thing that is terrifying for I think most of the people in the regulatory community is they don't have a system that allows them to control how a US citizen operates in that environment. And if it is inside the US sphere of influence, can we collect taxes on it?
你可以赌博是因为有一套法律框架规范此事，你不会违反其中任何一项。而这套框架是花了数十年的时间才建立的。对于监管部门的大多数人来说，最可怕的是他们没有一个系统来控制美国公民在这种环境下的操作方式。并且，如果它在美国的影响范围内，我们可以征税吗？
A couple of years ago, I think it was 2021 IRS did a survey, something like 40% of Americans that filed taxes sent a owned crypto. I think that plus cash outflows through COVID into crypto and offshore really terrified a lot of people in the regulatory system, especially the IRS.
我觉得是在几年前，大概是2021年，美国财政部进行了一项调查，结果显示约40%提交纳税申报的美国人拥有加密货币。我认为，加上COVID流出变成加密货币和海外流动的这一现象，真的让很多监管系统内的人们非常恐慌，特别是美国财政部。
I want to move on to one big FinTech story in the news is you teach FinTech at Duke University. Hindenburg, the short research firm. I missed that short research form. The short research form. I would totally be up for signing on to a short research forum. Maybe some more uniform sizes. So did anything in Hindenburg's research on block Jack Dorsey's financial technology company that has been accused of maybe opening the door too much to folks generating accounts to want to dress being able to commit fraud to give the extremely short version of a hundred page report.
我想谈谈新闻中的一个大型金融科技故事，就是你在杜克大学教授金融科技。 Hindenburg是一家短期研究公司。我错过了那个短期研究形式。短期研究形式。我完全可以签署一个短期研究论坛。也许需要一些更统一的尺寸。那么Hindenburg的研究中有没有对Jack Dorsey的金融科技公司有所影响？这家公司被指控开放了太多的门，让人们生成账户，想要进行欺诈行为，这只是那篇一百页报告的极简版本。
Anything in there surprised you is someone with a foot in the FinTech and regulation world. No, I mean, lots of financial services from do a lot of these things. Your Wells Fargo has been called out multiple times for doing versions of this same kind of thing, creating fake accounts as one example, right? You know, for the last five years, we've seen a lot of people, you know, in essence, one degree and other exaggerate or stretch where they were with something.
你觉得里面有什么让你惊讶的事情，那个人可能是在金融科技和监管领域有所涉猎。不，我的意思是许多金融服务机构都会做这些事情。像你的惠尔斯-法戈（Wells Fargo）就已经因为创建虚假账户等类似的事情被多次点名了，对吧？你知道，在过去的五年里，我们已经看到很多人，在某种程度上夸大了某个地方或事情。
And the problem, I think, that block currently has is that their financial operations and revenue and margin and all that kind of stuff was not in line with what they were talking about publicly. And I think a bunch of people did some really high quality research and discovered there's a gap there and that gap is an investment thesis, which now has opened the door to a bunch of other activities.
我认为，Block目前存在的问题是，他们的财务运营、收入、利润等方面与他们公开讨论的不符。一些人进行了高质量的研究，发现存在这种差距，而这种差距则成为了一种投资主张，从而开启了许多其他活动的大门。
You know, we have a financial system right now where some things are very transparent. Some things are entirely opaque. And the gap between those two is alpha, as we say, right? And the, I think, block is a great example of something went from very small to to medium to large very quickly. And the math just doesn't seem to add up correctly in some of those cases.
你知道，我们现在的金融系统有些事情非常透明，有些事情则完全不透明。而这两者之间的差距，就像我们所说的“alpha”。比如，我认为区块链是一个很好的例子，它从小到中再到大的速度非常快，但有些情况下数学计算似乎不太正确。
I know there is a line somewhere between banks and FinTech companies. I use Venmo for a lot of banking activities. A lot of folks use the cash app for banking activities. Are those products banks? It's a great question. My argument would be if your wallet is holding dollars and it's an American entity, it's a bank, right? That would be an example, right?
我知道银行和金融科技公司之间有一条界线。我经常使用Venmo进行很多银行活动。许多人使用现金应用程序进行银行业务。这些产品是银行吗？这是一个很好的问题。我的论点是，如果你的钱包持有美元并且是美国实体，那么它就是一个银行，对吧？那就是一个例子，对吧？
So Venmo's a bank, PayPal's bank, Starbucks is an app as the app is a bank, right? That is not the definition that holds up to legal standards though. And that's not what we've established as a community around that. And so it's really, there are banks. There are things that touch banks. And then there's financial services activities that touch them or touch banks as a gap, right?
所以，Venmo是一家银行，PayPal也是一家银行，星巴克是一款应用程序，因为这款应用程序也是一家银行，是这样吗？然而，这并不符合法律标准的定义。而且我们也没有形成这样的社区共识。所以，实际上有银行存在，有接触银行的业务存在，而有一些金融服务业务则存在于其中或作为一种间隙接触银行。
And it's a really interesting problem we have right now because if you were to take Starbucks, I just happen to know the math on Starbucks and take that app and call it a bank. It would be the 17th or 18th largest bank by value in the United States, right? One of the video game companies, I can't remember what, maybe it's, yeah, I won't say the one. I don't want to say the wrong one. But one of the video game companies out there runs a tremendous amount of payments infrastructure because of people playing on it by new boxes, etc.
我们现在面临的一个非常有趣的问题是，如果你拿星巴克来举例，我碰巧知道星巴克的数据，如果把星巴克的应用程序称之为银行。那么它就会成为美国按价值计算第17或第18大银行，对吧？还有一家电子游戏公司，我不记得是哪一家了，可能是 ......不，我不想说错了。但是这家电子游戏公司由于玩家购买新设备等原因，运行了大量的支付基础设施。
That would be like the seventh largest bank in the United States. If you called it a bank, and frankly, I think when you get to that skill, it does. We're going to have to create new regulatory systems and structures to allow for us to manage that because you talk to a younger person and you say, what's the difference between JP Morgan and Venmo, they don't know, they don't care.
那就像是美国第七大银行一样。如果你把它称为银行的话，说实话，我认为当你达到这种技能水平时，就应该这么称呼它。我们将需要创建新的监管系统和结构，让我们能够管理它，因为如果你问一个年轻人，JP Morgan和Venmo之间的区别是什么，他们不知道，也不关心。
Now some of that's because of the deep funding of parts of our educational system. But the other part is, is they just use it like one, right? I have an exchange account and I have a card that's in my Apple wallet. And so I can just buy stuff with it.
现在，这部分原因是因为我们的教育系统的某些部分深获资助。但是另一部分原因是，他们只是把它当做一种工具使用，对吧？我有一个交易账户，我有一张存在我的苹果钱包中的卡片。因此，我可以随时用它购买东西。
I said stuff with it, you know, I don't know if I, you know, it is two degree insured with air quotes around it. But the way we defined banking in the United States goes back to the 1930s and we haven't really reevaluated that and we're going to have to do that at some point. The rest of the world has already done that and has already moved on and we went from being five years out of date in 2008 to 10 to 15 years out of date now.
我说了一些话，你知道的，我不知道是否可以用带引号的气气保险来形容它。但是，我们在美国对银行业的定义可以追溯到 1930 年代，我们还没有真正重新评估过它，我们将不得不在某个时候这样做。世界其他地方已经这样做了，并且已经向前迈进了，我们从2008年被落后5年，现在已经落后了10到 15 年。
One topic before we get going, I'm going to ask you to wear your cybersecurity hat and that is because a company called Byte Dance, which owns TikTok, big in the news, hot in the streets in DC where legislators are considering a ban on the social media platform.
在我们开始之前，我想让你戴上你的网络安全帽。这是因为某个名叫字节跳动的公司，他们拥有TikTok这个社交媒体平台。这件事情正在成为新闻头条，特别是在华盛顿特区，立法者们正在考虑禁止这个社交媒体平台。
I want to talk about the solution that they've laid out, which is that to make it a separate entity that the Chinese government cannot spy on American information is that the company Oracle is going to house all the data in Texas. In that way, if you can hear my sarcasm, the Chinese government can't touch it mess with it all that good stuff. I don't buy that explanation, but do you?
我想谈一谈他们提出的解决方案，即把它作为一个独立实体，使中国政府无法窥探美国的信息。他们的做法是由Oracle公司将所有数据存储在德克萨斯州。这样，如果你能听到我的讽刺，中国政府就无法碰它或者搞乱它。我不相信这样的解释，但你呢？
No, not at all. The fact is the Chinese, the PRC government, and I always say PRC because I don't want people to think that they get to call themselves China. There's a second country that has the same name. That also has China that's name.
不，完全不是。事实上，中国、中华人民共和国政府和我总是用“中华人民共和国”这个称呼，因为我不想让人们觉得他们有资格称呼自己为“中国”。还有第二个国家也叫“中国”，它的名字也是“中国”。
The People's Republic of China is strategically focused on gathering up as much data on every American as possible for long-term utilization, and this proposed air-quote solution is just a pile of Byte Dance. I'll say it like that.
中国共和国的战略重点是收集尽可能多的美国人数据，以便长期利用。这个所谓的“解决方案”只是一堆字节舞蹈。我就这么说。
Interesting, taking it back to tying this back to the Binance conversation, there are data centers in Asia that have Byte Dance data sitting on the server that's right next to each other. So, Alibaba, Tencent, Binance, Byte Dance, these companies are all sharing hardware with data sitting co-resident across all of them in a variety of different environments.
有趣的是，回到与Binance的讨论，亚洲有一些数据中心，其中包括Byte Dance的数据，都在同一台服务器上。因此，阿里巴巴、腾讯、币安、字节跳动等公司在不同环境下共享硬件，并且它们的数据也同时共存于这些硬件上。
There is no way that I would trust Byte Dance or anything else owned by the PRC, which, you know, just as a reminder, there's no such thing as a private company instead of the PRC, right? The government always owns a piece of it, right? That is always part of the discussion in order to launch companies or scale companies, you have to be remembered the Communist Party.
我绝对不会相信字节跳动或中国所有的属于他们的任何东西。你知道的，提醒一下，其实不存在完全属于中国私人公司的情况，对吧？政府总是拥有一部分股份，对吗？在开展企业或扩大企业的过程中，党的地位总是需要被铭记在心的一部分。
So am I going to trust a communist backed by a communist government to, in the protection of American data? No, not at all. Now, is breaking up TikTok a thing and it's just, you know, removing it, it's, you know, there are a million ways we can solve this. From a cybersecurity perspective, I think it is a nightmare currently and the proposed solution only makes it worse.
那我会相信由共产主义政府支持的共产党员来保护美国的数据吗？绝对不会。现在，解散TikTok的做法就只是把它拿走，但是我们有无数种解决方案。从网络安全的角度来看，我认为目前的情况非常可怕，而提出的解决方案只会让情况变得更糟。
But the data's in Texas. How are they, how are they grabbing it? There's this thing called the Internet Ricky. I'm not sure if you've heard of it. The ability for Oracle to lock that out is impossible. Whether it's at the hardware layer, whether it's at the network layer, whether it's at the virtual machine or database layer, there are in almost infinite number of ways that Chinese could get access to that data.
但数据在得克萨斯州。他们是怎么获取它的？Ricky，有一件事叫做互联网。我不确定你听说过吗。Oracle锁定它的能力是不可能的。无论这是在硬件层面、网络层面、虚拟机层面或者数据库层面，中国人都能以几乎无限的方式获得那些数据。
Even if all they do is own the land the data center is on, which by the way, the amount of land in Texas owned by the PRC director and directly is a relevant one here. How much of the Oracle shareholder base is PRC? You know, these are all very important questions. I think people should really ask, you know, the more the long, long, attunally relevant questions.
即使他们只是拥有数据中心所在的土地，这对于中国人民共和国董事和直接拥有德克萨斯州土地的数量来说是相关的。甲骨文（Oracle）的股东基础中有多少来自中国人民共和国呢？你知道的，这些都是非常重要的问题。我认为人们应该真正地问这些更长远、更关键的问题。
You know, the Chinese don't care about next year. They care about the next century. And so are we going to play at that level or are we going to argue about what sounds good on CNN? That's Sultan Megji is the former chief innovation officer at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. You may know it as the FDIC.
你知道吗，中国人不在乎明年，他们在乎的是未来的一个世纪。所以我们是要与他们玩在同一个层次上，还是争论什么在 CNN 上听起来好听？这是Sultan Megji，联邦存款保险公司前首席创新官。你可能知道它叫做 FDIC。
It's also a professor in the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. Appreciate you joining us fools on Motley Fool Money. Thanks for having me, Ricky.
它也是杜克大学普拉特工程学院的教授。 感谢您加入我们Motley Fool Money的粉丝。感谢您的邀请，Ricky。
As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool Media formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear.
和往常一样，节目中的人可能对他们谈论的股票感兴趣，Motley Fool Media的正式建议是否赞成或反对也可能会影响他们的想法，所以请不要仅仅基于你听到的去买卖股票。
I'm Chris Hill. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.
我是克里斯·希尔。谢谢你的聆听。明天见。