There are many claims on different sides of the debate over fractional reserve banking. Doing the debate justice would require a book. And even then...
What can be done though is to provide an evocative introduction and tasty sample to whet your appetite. A brief review of the claims from either side gets us started and lays the groundwork for a more thorough examination.
The fundamental details of fractional reserve banking practice is simply enough stated. The tricky part is that such a simple statement leaves many people not fully appreciating the broader implications. First things, first, though: what is it?
Depositors place their savings into an account with a bank. The bank then uses those deposits to make loans to others - who may or may not also be depositors. (If they are, semantically accurate description can create complications with diminishing returns in insight. So, for purposes here, we'll just talk as though depositors and borrowers were different people.)
On first blush, this arrangement seems good for all parties. Borrowers can access funds to launch businesses or buy high price items, improving the quality of life for themselves and their families. The interest paid by borrowers fund bank operations. Additionally, a portion of that interest is passed on to depositors: this return on savings incentivizes them to deposit their savings at the bank and thereby fuels the entire system.
Put this way, we clearly have a classic win-win-win scenario on our hands. Alas, it turns out that the practical rollout of this situation is more complicated than these first impressions may suggest.
On the face of it, the banks seem to be putting themselves in a precarious situation. After all, the depositors are not investors. Most regard their money as merely being stored at the bank: a bit like renting a mini-storage unit to stash away those boxes of keepsakes they can't bring themselves to trash. They can go fetch those boxes, though, any time they want. So, most expect with their money deposited in the bank.
If we've understood the description of fractional reserve banking practices from above, though, obviously, their money isn't in the bank. It has been loaned out to borrowers. And, it can't be two places at the same time - right? Still, this slightly awkward situation works well enough in the general course of affairs. This is because most depositors, most of the time, have no reason to withdraw most of their money.
The banks of course don't lend out all the deposits. Instead, they reserve a fraction to meet withdrawal demands as they occur daily. This of course is the origination of the term fractional reserve banking.
Usually, this system works efficiently enough. It is true that many depositors don't realize when creating accounts that the small print in their contracts deny them withdrawal on demand. Often they have to at least endure a waiting period for withdrawals beyond a certain size.
Furthermore, beyond a certain threshold, the bank may exercise a prerogative to interrogate them about the financial intentions behind their withdraw demands. These contractual instruments enable banks to avoid the dangers posed by withdrawal demands that put their reserves at risk.
Usually, though, in the course of routine banking life, such measures are unnecessary. The banks' ability to anticipate reserve levels sufficient to cover expected withdrawals is generally effective enough to keep most people adequately contented with the arrangement.
Does this mean though that fractional reserve banking is uncontroversial or unproblematic? Far from it, claims many critics. In fact, it presents a constant threat of catastrophe for the bank and, given the interconnection of today's globalized banking system, even for the world economy.
Even that though is not the end of the danger. Under its apparently serene surface, fractional reserve banking plays an even more insidious role through its contribution to the inflationary destruction of the money supply . And that naturally increases the likelihood of borrowers defaulting on repayment and putting the entire system at even greater risk.
With these basics under your belt, you might want to turn to this article on the pros and cons (and con jobs) of fractional reserve banking for a deeper understanding of what's at stake.
What can be done though is to provide an evocative introduction and tasty sample to whet your appetite. A brief review of the claims from either side gets us started and lays the groundwork for a more thorough examination.
The fundamental details of fractional reserve banking practice is simply enough stated. The tricky part is that such a simple statement leaves many people not fully appreciating the broader implications. First things, first, though: what is it?
Depositors place their savings into an account with a bank. The bank then uses those deposits to make loans to others - who may or may not also be depositors. (If they are, semantically accurate description can create complications with diminishing returns in insight. So, for purposes here, we'll just talk as though depositors and borrowers were different people.)
On first blush, this arrangement seems good for all parties. Borrowers can access funds to launch businesses or buy high price items, improving the quality of life for themselves and their families. The interest paid by borrowers fund bank operations. Additionally, a portion of that interest is passed on to depositors: this return on savings incentivizes them to deposit their savings at the bank and thereby fuels the entire system.
Put this way, we clearly have a classic win-win-win scenario on our hands. Alas, it turns out that the practical rollout of this situation is more complicated than these first impressions may suggest.
On the face of it, the banks seem to be putting themselves in a precarious situation. After all, the depositors are not investors. Most regard their money as merely being stored at the bank: a bit like renting a mini-storage unit to stash away those boxes of keepsakes they can't bring themselves to trash. They can go fetch those boxes, though, any time they want. So, most expect with their money deposited in the bank.
If we've understood the description of fractional reserve banking practices from above, though, obviously, their money isn't in the bank. It has been loaned out to borrowers. And, it can't be two places at the same time - right? Still, this slightly awkward situation works well enough in the general course of affairs. This is because most depositors, most of the time, have no reason to withdraw most of their money.
The banks of course don't lend out all the deposits. Instead, they reserve a fraction to meet withdrawal demands as they occur daily. This of course is the origination of the term fractional reserve banking.
Usually, this system works efficiently enough. It is true that many depositors don't realize when creating accounts that the small print in their contracts deny them withdrawal on demand. Often they have to at least endure a waiting period for withdrawals beyond a certain size.
Furthermore, beyond a certain threshold, the bank may exercise a prerogative to interrogate them about the financial intentions behind their withdraw demands. These contractual instruments enable banks to avoid the dangers posed by withdrawal demands that put their reserves at risk.
Usually, though, in the course of routine banking life, such measures are unnecessary. The banks' ability to anticipate reserve levels sufficient to cover expected withdrawals is generally effective enough to keep most people adequately contented with the arrangement.
Does this mean though that fractional reserve banking is uncontroversial or unproblematic? Far from it, claims many critics. In fact, it presents a constant threat of catastrophe for the bank and, given the interconnection of today's globalized banking system, even for the world economy.
Even that though is not the end of the danger. Under its apparently serene surface, fractional reserve banking plays an even more insidious role through its contribution to the inflationary destruction of the money supply . And that naturally increases the likelihood of borrowers defaulting on repayment and putting the entire system at even greater risk.
With these basics under your belt, you might want to turn to this article on the pros and cons (and con jobs) of fractional reserve banking for a deeper understanding of what's at stake.
About the Author:
Those who want to be smart about managing their money need to stay tuned to the Fractional Reserve Banking Review to keep tabs on all the ways, new and old, that the banking system chips away at your wealth. Wallace Eddington has emerged as a leading voice on how to detect and beat the scams of the mainstream financial system. Check out his recent controversial article on a Free Market Economy in Money .
No comments:
Post a Comment