Tailored financial services solutions

ACHIEVE WITH US SUSTAINABLE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
We consult our clients to increase the efficiency and quality of their financial services.
We do this first through an in-depth process analysis, further on we develop and propose solutions and finally we assist our clients with the implementation of the new process.

Trendsletter # 2 - (Sep 2013) Series: Part 2

Part 2: The Money Creation Process Myths

Part1: Money Creation Process Introduction

In this series we will look at some money creation processes myths surrounding banks, including the favorite of economics textbook writers everywhere.


Perception of Banking Number 1: The 'Safe Deposit Box'

Most of us had a piggy bank when we were kids. The idea is really simple: keep putting small amounts of money into your piggy bank, and when a rainy day comes along, the money will still be sat there waiting for you. For a lot of people, this idea of keeping your money safe sticks with them into adult life. An international survey done found that a third of the EU public still believe that this is how banks work.

However, your bank account isn't a safe deposit box. The bank doesn't take your money, carry it down to the vault and put it in a box with your name written on the front. And it doesn't store it in any digital equivalent of a safe deposit box either. What actually happens is that when you put money into a bank, that money becomes the property of the bank. Because it becomes their property, the bank can use it for effectively anything it likes.

Upon being informed that there money was being used by the bank and not held safely, the people polled replied "This is wrong - I haven't given them my permission to do so."

But what are those numbers that appear in your account? Is that not money? In a legal sense, no. Those numbers in your account are just a record that the bank needs to repay you at some point in the future. In accounting terms, this is known as a liability of the bank. So the balance of your bank account doesn't actually represent the money that the bank is holding on your behalf. It just shows that they have a legal obligation - or liability - to repay you the money at some point in the future.

Perception of Banking Number 2: The Middle - Man

The other two thirds of the EU public have a slightly better understanding of how banks really work.

They believe that banks take money from savers and lend it to borrowers. In this idea, banks borrow money from people who want to save it, such as pensioners and wealthy individuals, and then they use that money to lend it to people who need to borrow, such as young families that want to buy houses or small businesses that want to invest and grow. The banks make their money by charging the borrowers slightly more in interest than they pay to the savers. The difference between the interest rates - known as the spread - makes up their profit.

In this model, banks just provide a service by getting money from people who don't need it at the time, to people who do. The survey mentioned earlier asked people if they were worried about this process: around 61% of people said they didn't mind so long as they get some interest and the bank isn't too reckless.

The implications of this theory are that if there's no-one who wants to save, then no-one will be able to borrow. That means it's good for the country if we save, because it will provide more money for businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs and a healthier economy. This is the way that a lot of economists think as well. In fact, a lot of economics courses at universities still teach that the amount of investment in the economy depends on how much we have in savings. But this is completely wrong, as we'll see shortly.

Perception of Banking Number 3: The Money Multiplier ("The Professional Model")

Most Economists and Financial Services experts have a slightly better understanding of banking. They get taught about something called the 'money multiplier'. The money multiplier story says that banks actually create much of the money in the economy.

Here's how the story goes: A man walks into a bank and deposits his salary of 3000 EUR in cash. Now the bank knows that, on average, the customer won't need the whole of his 3000 EUR returned all at once. He's probably going to spend a little bit of his salary each day over the course of the month. So the bank assumes that much of the money deposited is 'idle' or spare and won't be needed on any particular day.

It keeps back a small 'reserve' of say 10% of the money deposited with it (in this case 300 EUR), and lends out the other 2.700 EUR to somebody who needs a loan. So the borrower takes this 2.700 EUR and spends it at a local car dealer. The car dealer doesn't want to keep that much cash in its office, so it takes the money back to another bank.

Now the bank again realises that it can use the bulk of the money to make another loan. It keeps back 10% - 270 EUR - and lend out the other 2.430 EUR to make another loan. Whoever borrows the 2.430 EUR spends it, and it comes back to one of the banks again. Whichever bank receives it then keeps back 10% i.e. 243 EUR, and makes a new loan of 2.187 EUR.

This process of re-lending continues, with the same money being lent over and over again, but with 10% of the money being put in the reserve every time. Note that every one of the customers who paid money into the bank still thinks that their money is there, in the bank. The numbers on their bank statement confirm that the money is still there. Even though there is still only 3.000 EUR in cash flowing around, the sum total of everyone's bank account balances has been increasing, and so has the total amount of debt.

Supposedly this process continues, until only a penny is being relent. By now, the sum total of all bank accounts adds up to about 30.000 EUR. So the multiplier model that is still taught in many universities implies that this repeated process of a bank taking money from a customer, putting a little bit into a reserve, and then lending out the rest can create money out of nothing, because the same money is double-counted every time is it relent.

You can imagine this model as a pyramid. The cash is the base of the pyramid, and depending on the reserve ratio the banks multiply up the total amount of money by re-lending it over and over again. More advanced treatments include the concept of 'central bank reserves' as well as cash, however the basic message is the same.

Problems with the money multiplier model

The money multiplier model of banking has several implications:

Firstly, this model implies that banks have to wait until someone puts money into a bank before they can start making loans. This implies that banks just react passively to what customers do, and that they wait for people with savings to come along before they start lending.

Secondly, it implies that the central bank has ultimate control over the total amount of money in the economy. They can control the amount of money by changing either the reserve ratio or the amount of 'base money' - cash - at the bottom of the pyramid.

For example, if the European Central Bank (ECB) sets a legal reserve ratio and this reserve ratio is 10%, then the total money supply can grow to 10 times the amount of cash in the economy. If the ECB then increases the reserve ratio to 20%, then the money supply can only grow to 5 times the amount of cash in the economy. If the reserve ratio was dropped to 5%, then the money supply would grow to 20 times the amount of cash in the economy.

Alternatively, the ECB could change how much cash there was in the economy in the first place. If it printed another 1.000 EUR and put that into the economy, and the reserve ratio is still 10%, then the theory says that the money supply will increase in time by a total of 10.000 EUR , after the banks have gone through the process of repeatedly re-lending that money. This process is described as altering the amount of 'base money' in the economy.

Thirdly, it implies the money supply can never get out of control, unless the central bank wants it to. Unfortunately, the money multiplier model of banking is completely wrong. Professor Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics and an advisor to the Bank of England for over 30 years described this model (in 1984) as "such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to mis-instruction." Why is this?

The underlying concept of the money multiplier is that in order to make loans banks first require people to deposit money. However, this is simply not true. In actual fact when banks lend they create deposits. Nor do banks need reserves in order to make loans.

Central bankers not only reject the money multiplier story due to their understanding of how banks operate, but also because of the empirical evidence.


There are also other reasons why the money multiplier is not a good model of how banks actually operate. For example, there's no reserve ratio in the EU countries anymore, and there hasn't been for a long time. While reserve ratios might be useful for other reasons, it is almost impossible for the ECB to use reserve ratios (or limit reserves held by banks in other ways) to restrict credit creation by banks. There are several reasons for this, not least because "banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later".

Of course, the central bank could choose not to provide a bank with extra reserves when requested. However, if the bank in question had extended credit and requested reserves in order to make a payment on behalf of a borrower, by not providing the reserves the central bank could create a problem for the bank in question.

For example, in a banking system with a reserve ratio the denial of reserves to a bank (which causes their reserves to fall below the regulated amount) will result in one of three outcomes:

    1. The bank may attempt to borrow the reserves from another bank. However this is likely to place upward pressure on the interest rate at which banks lend reserves to each other on the interbank market. If the central bank wishes to maintain this rate then in all likelihood it will have to provide further reserves to the banking system - undermining its efforts to restrain lending through restricting reserves.
    2. The central bank may allow the bank to break the rules, and operate with a reserve ratio of less than the required amount. The central bank may deny the bank the ability to make payments until its reserve ratio increases up to the required amount.
    3. If the bank is also unable to borrow the reserves either from the central bank or other banks this could create a liquidity crisis, as the bank in question will not be able to make the payment. This could then potentially lead to a solvency crisis and/or a financial crisis.

Therefore if the central bank wants to restrict the money supply by using reserve ratios or by restricting the amount of reserves availability to private banks, it must be willing to either allow large fluctuations in the interest rate or alternatively intermittent liquidity crises. Due to the potential for liquidity crises to turn into solvency crises, and because a solvency issue at one bank can cause a cascade of bankruptcies throughout the entire banking system, the central banks are unlikely to pursue the second option. Indeed, it goes against one of the central bank's core functions - its mandate to protect financial stability.

Our Values

We strongly believe that only through the right people and motivational management, the sustainability of our clients business can be achieved. Financial services should be delivered in an efficient collaborative manner by highly knowledgeable and responsible teams. Our approach is to help clients to view their time as a precious resource and help them prioritize their time according to their company goals. We help our clients to keep the focus on their customers and therefore, set up a clear strategy. Our ability to generate original, quality ideas - <em>for clients and for ourselves</em> - are key drivers to remain competitive in the future.<br> Our high standards of service quality, effort and professionalism paired with our technical excellence will help our clients to gain a sustainable competitive advantage in the future.
Contact

Thank you for your interest in Financial Services Consulting. Please contact us directly using the information below:

Phone: +352 26432851
E-mail: info@finserv.lu

For specific or urgent requests please click here to fill in the corresponding form

Contact Us