Minsky and the Narrow Banking Proposal: No Solution for Financial Reform

Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Levy Economics Institute Public Policy Brief of Bard College No. 125, 2012 MINSKY AND THE NARROW BANKING PROPOSAL: NO SOLUTION FOR FINANCIAL REFORM Contents 3 Prefac e Dimitri B. Papadimitriou 4 Minsky and the Narrow Banking Proposal Jan Kregel 9 About the Author The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is an autonomous research organization. It is nonpartisan, open to the examination of diverse points of view, and dedicated to public service. The Institute is publishing this research with the conviction that it is a constructive and positive contribution to discussions and debates on relevant policy issues. Neither the Institute’s Board of Governors nor its advisers necessarily endorse any proposal made by the authors. The Institute believes in the potential for the study of economics to improve the human condition. Through scholarship and research it gen - erates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. The present research agenda includes such issues as financial instability, poverty, employment, gender, problems associated with the distribu - tion of income and wealth, and international trade and competitiveness. In all its endeavors, the Institute places heavy emphasis on the val - ues of personal freedom and justice. Editor: Michael Stephens Text Editor: Barbara Ross The Public Policy Brief Series is a publication of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Blithewood, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on- Hudson, NY 12504-5000. For information about the Levy Institute, call 845-758-7700 or 202-887-8464 (in Washington, D.C.), e-mail [email protected], or visit www.levyinstitute.org. The Public Policy Brief Series is produced by the Bard Publications Office. Copyright © 2012 by the Levy Economics Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information-retrieval system, without permis - sion in writing from the publisher. ISSN 1063 5297 ISBN 978-1-936192-25-0 Preface Before the law has even been fully implemented, the inadequa - deposit-taking and investment banking functions of the financial cies of the regulatory approach underlying the Dodd-Frank Act sector would be split into separate subsidiaries of a bank holding are becoming more and more apparent. Financial scandal by company. The deposits of the deposit-taking subsidiary would financial scandal, the realization is hardening that there is a be backed by safe, liquid assets by requiring 100 percent reserves pressing need to search for more robust regulatory alternatives. in government bonds or currency, and investment banking There are even increasing calls to break up the huge, multifunc - would be conducted by a separate subsidiary with a 100 percent tion financial institutions that dominate the sector in the United ratio of capital to assets. When looking at such a system, we States. But this is only half a solution, at best. As Senior Scholar might be tempted to say that, if these separate subsidiaries were Jan Kregel makes clear in this policy brief, the most fundamen - appropriately capitalized, this would stave off many of the prob - tal questions about a future financial structure remain unan - lems that plagued the financial system in the last meltdown, swered by these proposals to break up the big banks. In the including the need to bail out institutions engaged in specula - absence of effective antitrust legislation, it is far from a sure thing tive trading in order to save the payments system. that we would not simply witness a fresh process of conglomer - But for reasons elaborated on by Kregel, such a narrow ation through merger and acquisition. But even if breaking up banking structure is not, in fact, a solution to our problems. This the biggest financial institutions were to stick, this proposal does narrow banking proposal would create a system in which volun - not tell us anything about the structure of the smaller institu - tary savings decisions would completely determine investment tions that would remain after such a breakup. If these smaller decisions. This would be a system marked by a chronic tendency institutions are allowed to continue engaging in the same com - toward deflation, making it even more reliant on demand injec - plex and risky activities that were at the center of the last finan - tions from the government. A perfectly separated system would cial mess, then we will have made little progress. effectively eliminate leverage and liquidity creation; for all intents The real challenge for financial reform is to develop a vision and purposes, it would eliminate banking. Banks would not be for a financial structure that would simplify the system and the able to finance the process of “creative destruction” essential to activities of financial institutions so that they can be regulated innovation. On top of all this, 100 percent reserve banking would and supervised effectively. Some paths to such simplification, still not ensure the stability of capital financing institutions—or however, are not worth treading. Against the backdrop of the stability of the real economy. renewed present-day interest in the Depression-era “Chicago Dodd-Frank, before it has even been finalized, may already Plan,” featuring 100 percent reserve backing for deposits, Kregel be outmoded and outdated. The regulatory regime fashioned by turns to Hyman Minsky’s consideration of a similar “narrow the 2010 law, old before its time, will need to be replaced with a banking” proposal in the mid-1990s. For reasons that eventually simpler alternative, preferably before the next crisis comes burst - led Minsky himself to abandon the proposal, as well as reasons ing through its numerous gaps and loopholes. But narrow bank - developed here by Kregel that have even more pressing relevance ing is not the answer. in today’s political climate, plans for a narrow banking system As always, I welcome your comments. are found wanting. In the mid-1990s, Minsky was contemplating a proposal Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, President for a reformed post-Glass-Steagall architecture in which the August 2012 Levy Economics Institute of Bard College 3 Introduction In his considerations of possible improvements in the struc - The recent losses at JPMorgan Chase, the money laundering ture of the financial system, Minsky suggested that the benefits of activities of HSBC, and the recent discovery of collusive activity simplicity and transparency inherent in Glass-Steagall might be to influence the London Interbank Offered Rate by the money preserved within a bank holding company structure by restrict - market desks of some of the largest global banks, some two years ing the permissible assets and liabilities of the separate sub - after the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, have led to calls for a sidiaries. In a number of documents prepared for the mid-1990s more rigorous approach to the regulation of large multifunction discussions of the reform of Glass-Steagall, Minsky proposed, banks that are clearly too big to manage and too big to regulate. One response has been to suggest a simple breakup of the largest One or more subsidiaries of a post Glass-Steagall bank banks. holding company will have monetary liabilities. These Both the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, subsidiary institutions will enjoy protections from the Richard Fisher (2012), and the former president of the Federal central bank and treasury which guarantee that their Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig (2009), have for - monetary liabilities will not fall to a discount from their mally proposed the dissolution of the largest complex US finan - face value. In exchange for this protection the assets cial institutions that dominate the financial system. But this they can own will be restricted. A representative post proposal deals only with the size of financial institutions; it does Glass Steagall bank holding company will have special - not indicate what the structure of the smaller institutions should ized financial subsidiaries which include not only a be. Creating a greater number of smaller, independent financial combination of commercial, investment and merchant holding companies would not necessarily simplify supervision banking subsidiaries but also a sampling of more spe - if these companies were still dealing in multiple types of com - cialized financial institutions such as credit card oper - plex, interconnected financing activities involving structured ations, payment operations, finance companies and the lending instruments. Simply making institutions smaller need brokering and underwriting of insurance. Each sub - not make them safer and more stable, if they are permitted the sidiary will have a dedicated equity, which protects the same range of activities involving the same types of financial holders of the liabilities of the subsidiary. (Minsky instruments. And in the absence of effective antitrust legislation, 1995c, 3) breaking up the larger institutions would in all likelihood simply be followed by another process of concentration by merger and Minsky drew out the implications of such a system: “once acquisition similar to that seen after the suspension of branching the distinction between the payments and financing operations restrictions. of banks is recognized, it follows that

Load more