I AGREE with Jim Stamper and Robert Ingram (Letters, December 15) that Scotland should move to its own currency and Central Bank as soon as practicable after independence (and “as soon as practicable” is really all you need for the official policy – no 10 years’ delay, tests and sundry other garbage!), but I do have a degree in economics and I can’t see any sense in the idea of “full reserve” banking.
In fact I think it would be impractical, dangerous (all loan funds would be provided by the state via the Central Bank), and bad for the economy. In a strange sort of way, actually it would be zero reserve given the Central Bank holds essentially nothing to back the money it issues.
READ MORE: An independent Scotland should have its own currency and bank
The old building societies were not full reserve, and in fact I doubt if there has been any full reserve bank anywhere at least as far back as the Florentines and Lombards developing the forerunners of modern banks.
A full reserve bank would not be something we would recognise as it would be little more than a safe-deposit box. If you have to keep 100% reserves against the value of all accounts (eg by a deposit at the Central Bank) then you can’t lend at all (other than any shareholder’s funds – usually tiny), so there would be no credit cards, mortgages, and the like from commercial banks.
You would also have to pay fees to cover the costs of running the accounts, since the only income of the bank would be interest paid on deposits by the Central Bank (generally small).
READ MORE: We should aspire to be free from the control of the private banking system
The problem in 2008 wasn’t fractional reserve banking as such, but regulators and banks colluding over many years to game the system. So in the old days you had a simple rule, eg 10% reserves across the board on all accounts. Then some clever person came up with the idea of risk-weighted reserves. So now we classify some loans as low risk (low reserves) and others as high risk.
So mortgages, because all humans seem to have a fixation with bricks and mortar, get classified as low risk. That is despite the fact that almost every single bank failure in history has been caused by a property market crash. Strictly speaking mortgages should be classified as the highest possible risk for a bank!
Different weights for different loans also leads to flipping assets (loans) between categories. That was why flipping high-risk sub-prime mortgages into low -isk (so they said!) credit default swaps was so important – you needed much less reserves for the latter.
Generally speaking, banks can get into trouble with any lending that is long-term, and the more so when the asset is highly illiquid (as is a house – it can’t be sold quickly, and certainly not in a slump).
That was what the actual difference was with the old building societies – much of the deposit base was tied in for one year, five years etc. Plus as “members”, depositors were more loyal, and indeed many depositors would also be the borrowers.
We got rid of that by allowing building societies to become banks and banks to become building societies. The old commercial banks generally did not offer many long-term mortgages precisely because they are dangerous if your deposits can be withdrawn without notice.
That is also why you need the Scottish National Investment Bank to fund business – long-term loans (eg five years) to risky businesses (and as 90% of start-ups close within 10 years, every new business is highly risky!) are simply neither safe nor sensible for a commercial bank.
Tim Rideout
Dalkeith
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel