• Entrepreneurial Equity
  • Portfolio Investments
    • Current Investments
    • Historic Investments
  • Scribblings
    • Jane Taylor Book Launch
  • Fake News
  • Theology, Religion & Philosophy Corner
    • Does God Exist? The Rational Approach
    • What is the Evidence for Christianity?
    • What did Jesus Actually Teach? Only in His own Words
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Contact
  • Media Gallery
  • About Me
  • Home
  • Entrepreneurial Equity
  • Portfolio Investments
    • Current Investments
    • Historic Investments
  • Scribblings
    • Jane Taylor Book Launch
  • Fake News
  • Theology, Religion & Philosophy Corner
    • Does God Exist? The Rational Approach
    • What is the Evidence for Christianity?
    • What did Jesus Actually Teach? Only in His own Words

Banking: From Bagehot to Basel, and Back Again

Banking: From Bagehot to Basel, and Back Again

27 Oct 2010
0 Comment
Toby Baxendale
Fractional Reserve Banking, Insight, Irving Fisher, Kotlikoff, Maturity transformation, Mervyn King

As reported yesterday on Mises.org, there were some very encouraging statements in Mervyn King’s Monday speech to the Buttonwood Gathering in New York.

King noted that “Of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today”. After considering various possible reforms, he moved on to some that were “more radical” (my emphasis):

One simple solution, advocated by my colleague David Miles, would be to move to very much higher levels of capital requirements – several orders of magnitude higher. A related proposal is to ensure there are large amounts of contingent capital in a bank’s liability structure. Much more loss- absorbing capital – actual or contingent – can substantially reduce the size of costs that might be borne outside of a financial firm. But unless complete, capital requirements will never be able to guarantee that costs will not spill over elsewhere. This leads to the limiting case of proposals such as Professor Kotlikoff’s idea to introduce what he calls “limited purpose banking” (Kotlikoff, 2010). That would ensure that each pool of investments made by a bank is turned into a mutual fund with no maturity mismatch. There is no possibility of alchemy. It is an idea worthy of further study.

Another avenue of reform is some form of functional separation. The Volcker Rule is one example. Another, more fundamental, example would be to divorce the payment system from risky lending activity – that is to prevent fractional reserve banking (for example, as proposed by Fisher, 1936, Friedman, 1960, Tobin, 1987 and more recently by Kay, 2009).

In essence these proposals recognise that if banks undertake risky activities then it is highly dangerous to allow such “gambling” to take place on the same balance sheet as is used to support the payments system, and other crucial parts of the financial infrastructure. And eliminating fractional reserve banking explicitly recognises that the pretence that risk-free deposits can be supported by risky assets is alchemy. If there is a need for genuinely safe deposits the only way they can be provided, while ensuring costs and benefits are fully aligned, is to insist such deposits do not coexist with risky assets.

On regulation, King notes

We certainly cannot rely on being able to expand the scope of regulation without limit to prevent the migration of maturity mismatch. Regulators will never be able to keep up with the pace and scale of financial innovation. Nor should we want to restrict innovation. But it should be undertaken by investors using their own money not by intermediaries who also provide crucial services to the economy, allowing them to reap an implicit public subsidy.

He concludes

There is no simple answer to the too important to fail nature of banks. Maturity transformation brings economic benefits but it creates real economic costs. The problem is that the costs do not fall on those who enjoy the benefits. The damaging externalities created by excessive maturity transformation and risk-taking must be internalised.

A market economy has proved to be the most reliable means for a society to expand its standard of living. But ever since the Industrial Revolution we have not cracked the problem of how to ensure a more stable banking system. We know that there will always be sharp and unpredictable movements in expectations, sentiment and hence valuations of financial assets. They represent our best guess as to what the future holds, and views about the future can change radically and unpredictably. It is a phenomenon that we must learn to live with. But changes in expectations can create havoc with the banking system because it relies so heavily on transforming short-term debt into long-term risky assets. For a society to base its financial system on alchemy is a poor advertisement for its rationality.

Change is, I believe, inevitable. The question is only whether we can think our way through to a better outcome before the next generation is damaged by a future and bigger crisis. This crisis has already left a legacy of debt to the next generation. We must not leave them the legacy of a fragile banking system too.

Related articles:

  • Robert Peston, BBC – Mervyn King says banking must be reinvented
  • The Telegraph – Banks should be broken up, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King warns
About the Author
“Toby Baxendale is an entrepreneur who built up, amongst other things, the UK's largest fresh fish supplier to the Food Service sector, see www.directseafoods.co.uk, and recently sold it. Toby is dedicated to furthering the teaching of the Austrian school of economics. He established and funded the 1st Distinguished Hayek Visiting Teaching Fellowship Program at the LSE in Honour of the Nobel Laureate F A Hayek. Toby is Chairman of The Cobden Centre. Richard Cobden's timeless principles of the abolition of legal privilege of the few at the expense of the many are worthy in this day and age to promote.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

More Scribblings

Japan, an Opportunity Awaits Us

11 Jun 2020

Austrian Economics Podcast

22 Oct 2019

Economics for the Many

18 Oct 2018

What is Right Wing?

06 Nov 2017

The Protectionist Zombie Is Back

19 Jul 2017

Brexit Podcast

16 Jun 2017

Liberty Me

20 Dec 2013

My Time for Speakers for Schools

07 Dec 2013

The Selfish Gene, its Extended Phenotypic Effects and Human Cooperation

19 Aug 2013

In Defense of the Euro (An Austrian Perspective)

15 Aug 2013

IM70.3 Mallorca - The Chairman's report

13 May 2013

AEP and “The Chicago Plan Revisited

18 Jan 2013

Ron Paul’s Monetary Policy Anthology

08 Jan 2013

Exorcising the Ghost of Ironman Zurich

14 Nov 2012

Communist Approval For Western Central Banking

28 Sep 2012

The Motive Powers Of Destructionism

19 Sep 2012

The Hope Of Osborne And The Error Of Osborne

14 Sep 2012

The Ultimate Subsidy For The Rich

03 Sep 2012

Gross And Net Product

30 Aug 2012

Did The Savings Glut Or Massive Monetary Epansion Cause The Boom And The Bust?

13 Aug 2012

Forward To Liberalism

29 Jul 2012

Hugh Hendry v. Joseph Stiglitz

18 Jul 2012

Fraud - Documentary

13 Jul 2012

A Great Teacher

13 Jul 2012

Fraud

13 Jul 2012

Our Central Bankers Are intellectually Bankrupt

09 May 2012

Tag Cloud

ABCT Austrian School Bank of England Banking Benjamin M. Anderson Economics F A Hayek Federal Reserve Fractional Reserve Banking Fraud gold Hayek Lecture 2010 Henry Hazlitt Honest Money Huerta de Soto inflation Insight Jean Baptiste Say Keynes Keynesianism MIses Monetarism Quantitative Easing Richard Cobden Sean Corrigan
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Proudly built by Lemongrass Media - Web Design Hertfordshire