Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sam Hummel's avatar

Thanks for the question, Brian. It's helpful to know that my explanation wasn't satisfactory. I thought I had done so in comparing the story of banks taking in deposits and setting them aside vs banks creating money purely as credit creation. The fractional reserve story says that banks lend out of deposits by setting aside a portion and lending out the rest. That is not how it works, and therefore the fractional reserve story is not an accurate description of how banks create money.

I'm guessing what I needed to further do is address the common confusion that comes into play with the capital adequacy rule. The capital adequacy rule says that a bank cannot hold assets (loans and bonds, primarily) greater than a percentage of their "capital" (the ratio is roughly between 8-13%, so is often shorthanded as 10%, but that's not correct). Capital is not deposits. It is the "net wealth" of the bank. It is a residual of the difference between a bank's assets and its liabilities. For big banks, it is best understood as a measure of the profits the bank has retained rather than paid out to its shareholders. The capital adequacy rules imposts no limits on bank lending in relation to deposits, at all.

In countries that still have reserve requirements (mainly in the Global South), the reserve requirement does not work the way that the fractional reserve story says, either. The reserve requirement says that a bank must hold central bank reserves equal to 10% of deposits. It doesn't say a bank must hold back 10% of its deposits from being lent out while it lends out the rest. So, banks can (and do) lend by creating fresh deposits and then look for reserves later, often by buying or borrowing them from the central bank or other banks. They don't use deposits to do that buying and borrowing, either. Deposits already on a bank's books are useless for getting central bank reserves. That is because deposits are a debt of the bank, not an asset. The central bank and other banks don't want to sell reserves to a bank in exchange for their debts! They want to get assets in exchange. So, banks buy/borrow reserves by trading away the loans and bonds (assets) on their books, not deposits.

Importantly, the reserve requirement never actually limited the banking sector's ability to lend, as a whole. The central bank always provides enough reserves to meet banks' need to settle transactions with each other. However, it can increase the cost banks incur when holding loans above a 10% ratio to deposits, since they will have to rent reserves from the central bank to stay in compliance with the reserve requirement. This can deter individual banks from making loans, but as I said, it doesn't limit the ability of the banking sector, as a whole, to grow lending.

Thanks for the question, Brian. Let me know if that helped!

Expand full comment
Brian's avatar

Nice video! You say that the fractional reserve banking story isn't accurate, but don't really explain the reason. Can a bank with $10,000 in deposits make $10,000,000 in loans? Why or why not?

Expand full comment

No posts