I’m constantly amazed by how much the crypto community thinks they understand fractional reserve banking while getting it so completely wrong.
In fractional reserve banking, money that is loaned out is accounted for as liabilities. These liabilities subtract from the overall balance stored (reserved) at the bank. The bank is not printing money new money, no matter how many times this idea gets repeated by people who are, ironically, pumping crypto coins that were printed out of thin air.
I think it’s incredible that cryptocurrencies were literally manifested out of bits, but the same people try to criticize banks for doing this same thing (which they don’t).
> The bank is not printing money new money, no matter how many times this idea gets repeated by people who are, ironically, pumping crypto coins that were printed out of thin air.
It is now widely accepted that bank lending produces new money[1][2]
There's an inordinate amount of nonsense being espoused in this thread, when the answer is in that first link. I can only assume it's the miseducation that economics textbooks perpetuate.
The "liabilities" aren't subtracted from the deposit amount when counted as M1 supply. (Actually loans are accounted for as assets and deposits are liabilities, but that's beside the point).
If customer A deposits $100 in cash, and customer B borrows $100 from the bank and deposits it back in the bank, M1 goes up because there are now two checking accounts with $100 in it. That the bank's internal bookkeeping balances doesn't change the fact that the Fed considers that more money exists.
> That the bank's internal bookkeeping balances doesn't change the fact that the Fed considers that more money exists.
The Fed considers that more M1 exists and the same amount of M0 exists. Both are considered monetary aggregates, but M0 is the "money" the bank needs to worry about to stay solvent, and it can't "print" that.
Whilst it's semantically correct to refer to both M1 and M0 as money, it's pretty clear that it's wrong for people people to elide the two to insinuate that banks are printing themselves balances out of thin air like token issuers or insolvent companies that screwed up their customer balance calculations, which is what the OP was covering.
And the Fed wouldn't consider more money to exist if the bank's internal bookkeeping didn't balance...
I agree. The main point is that if B knows that they don't have to repay the $100 until 10 years in the future, then for the 10 next years everyone can pretend there are $200 in total.
Money that is loaned out is still accounted for as liabilities.
Sure, those liabilities are accounted for in an eventually consistent matter by reconciling imbalances on interbank lending markets at the end of the day with the government topping up any systemic shortfall rather than by counting out deposit coins in the vault
But that's fundamentally much closer to the "Old Money" view than to the OP's claim about fractional reserve being like an FBO inflating customer deposits by failing to track trades properly. All the credit extended by the bank is accounted for, and all of it that isn't backed by reserves is backed by the bank's obligations to someone else.
> Money that is loaned out is still accounted for as liabilities.
To be clear:
* Money is "loaned out" in the sense that a bank credits your account.
* Money is not loaned out in the sense that which "goes into" your account did not come out of someone else's account. Rather it was created 'out of thin air' by the bank without reference to anyone else's deposits.
I am familiar with your links, for quite some time actually.
I never said that the money came out of someone else's account.
What I did say was that it was accounted for as liabilities. It's the bank's liability to the loanee (or their bank), which the bank absolutely can be obliged to pay with reserves or cold hard cash (and it can only get these from borrowing, selling assets or customers paying cash into their account).
And so banks lend it out to people attached to a slightly larger liability repayable to them and keep track, because if they don't all this money they're "printing" represents losses in terms of obligations they can't "print" their way out of. That's quite different from the ledger screwup its being compared with, or indeed people creating tokens (not backed by debt or anything else) out of thin air to sell to other people
Yes, the loan is the bank's asset. The deposit created aka "the money" is the bank's liability. I don't think we're in disagreement here.
A corollary of this is that contra popular suggestions otherwise, the accounts net to zero and the bank obtains no gain from "printing money", only from interest earned on repayments.
This is a good explanation, I've had to explain this topic a few times as well, it seems like it's one of those topics that is very missunderstood.
To just expand a bit, I believe some of the confusion around printing of money comes from the way some economics reports are built. As a micro example, Assume a 10% required reserve, If Alice deposits $100 and the bank lends $90 to Bob. Alice ($100 deposits) + Bob ($90 cash) think they have $190 in total.
This is mainly useful for economists to understand, study, and report on. However, when the reports get distributed to the public, it looks like the banks printed their own money, as we now see $190 on the report when there is only $100 of cash in our example system.
Whether the system should work on a fractional reserve is it's own debate, but we need to know what it is to debate the merits and risks of the system.
And how does that work when the 'required reserve' is zero as it is now, and has been in the rest of the world since time immemorial?
Nobody deposits in a bank - it's just a retag of an existing deposit. The bank Debits a loan account with the amount owed, and Credits a deposit account with the advance. It's a simple balance sheet expansion in double-entry bookkeeping.
I'm really not sure why this myth persists given that central banks debunked the concept over a decade ago.
Loans create deposits, and those deposits are then converted into bank capital when a deposit holder buys bank capital bonds or equity.
Now do the balance sheet journals for such a transfer. [0]
Then you'll see that for a bank to transfer to another bank the destination bank has to take over the deposit in the source bank (or swap that liability with another bank somewhere).
In fractional reserve banking, the total deposits at a bank can be greater than the amount of physical money it holds. Since the rest of society is willing to accept bank deposits as an alternative to physical money, this is a form of printing money. Physical currency is not printed, but bank deposit currency (which is money, by de facto agreement) is.
First of all, I take offense to being thrown in as part of the crypto community, with which I have nothing to do, and for which I do not have much hope.
So now if you are unhappy with the monetary system you are automatically a crypto bro and can be dismissed?
Secondly, the problem with fractional reserve banking is as follows: Suppose Larry makes a deposit of one dollar, which the bank guarantees can be retrieved at any time. The bank loans this dollar to Catherine, which uses it to buy something from Steve. Now Steve has one dollar, which he deposits with the bank. The bank lends this dollar to Catherine2, which uses it to buy something from Steve2. And so on, up to CatherineN and SteveN
Now, in so far as transactions can take place in the economy with bank IOUs, which are considered perfect money substitutes, the amount of money in the economy has been multiplied by a factor of N. Where before only Peter had a dollar (or a dollar IOU, which are supposedly the same), now Pere AND Steve, Steve2, up to SteveN all have a dollar IOU. This leads to an inflationary pressure.
Now it is true that upon the Catherine's repaying of the debt, these extra dollars will go away. However, in reality there is no such thing as negative dollars. The supply of money has been increased by the bank.
An objection could be raised that Catherine's extra demand for money to pay off her debt will exactly offset the extra supply of money. This is nonsense! Everyone demands money all the time. If Catherine did not demand money to pay off her loan, she would demand money in order to satisfy her next most urgent want which could be satisfied by money. The increase in the demand for money is negligible.
Your explanation of fractional reserve banking is somewhat correct, but missing the big picture
Licensed banks can and do write loans at any time without having any deposits to 'lend out'. In doing so they create both the loan (an asset) and a deposit (a liability) simultaneously from thin air. The books immediately balance.
The deposit created is then paid to the borrower and the liability vanishes. The bank is left with only the asset - the one that they created from thin air.
For short term liquidity a bank can always use the overnight lending facility at the central bank. Doing so just makes all their loans far less profitable as this is at a floating daily rate.
In reality the limit to which the money supply grows is not dictated by 'fractional reserves', but solely by interest rate policy and the commercial viability of being able to make loans and demand in the economy.
Not quite. The deposit is paid to the borrower as an advance, and the deposit is transferred to the payee (or the receiving bank if the payee is at another bank)
The liability can never vanish - balance sheets have to balance. Bank liabilities are what we call 'money'. Hence how you are 'in credit' at the bank.
And when we look at the bank assets which back those liabilities, we find that (say) 10% are government-printed money, and the remaining 90% were created by banks.
The loan will be accounted to loan book and deposit book on the local(!) banking system level; if the money moves out of the bank, it has to go through central banking money circle - on this level, the loan amount is _NOT_ created, this account can be "filled" only with incoming transactions from other banks (customer deposits!)
Thats the reason why a bank needs deposists: to make payments possible, since the number on the central banking account is always smaller than the number of all loans on the local banking system level.
"Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply
as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’
central bank money to create new loans and deposit"
The part you are talking about is illustrated in Figure 2.
The transfer of central bank reserves between banks doesn't change the fact that once a loan is written new money enters circulation.
My comment was meant as a tounge-in-cheek joke, with a dig at the banking system. It was not meant as a serious equivocation between what Synapse did and what banks do.
The bank IS printing new money. You are ignoring the money multiplier effect where the money lent by bank 1 is deposited into bank 2, bank 2 lends 90% of that deposit, which is deposited into bank 3, ... repeating the process over and over.
With a 10% reserve requirement, a 1,000,000 USD deposit will result in up to 10 times that much money being lent out.
The formula is 1/r, where r is the reserve requirement.
That´s not correct unfortunately, although it has been widely taught in economics text books, and you can blame Keynes for that. Keynes used that example to try and explain the process to parliament, and also to argue that the system didn't expand the deposit money supply over time. Ironically even the data (in the Macmillan report) he supplied contradicted him. It´s confusing as well, because the fundamental rules have changed over time.
Banks can lend up to an allowed multiple of their cash or equivalent reserves (gold standard regulation), and in the Basel era are also regulated on the ratio of their capital reserves to their loans. This acts to stop hyperflationary expansion, but there is a feedback loop between new deposits and new capital so the system does still expand slowly over time. This may be beneficial.
In engineering terms, Banks statistically multiplex asset cash with liability deposits, using the asset cash to solve FLP consensus issues that arise when deposits are transferred between banks. It´s actually quite an elegant system.
> and in the Basel era are also regulated on the ratio of their capital reserves to their loans
Reducing the reserve ratio to zero doesn't mean that banks can create unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. It just means that regulation by capital requirements has now fully superseded regulation by reserve ratio.
In theory those capital requirements are a better and finer-grained regulatory tool, capturing the different risk of different classes of asset. In practice that can fail--for example, the SVB collapsed insolvent because it was permitted to value bonds above their fair market value if it claimed they'd be held to maturity. That failure was in the details though, not the general concept.
interestingly, the Fed's page on Reserve Requirements states:
As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions.
Oh ok. So there’s a difference between reserve requirements and capital requirements. Capital requirements are still in place Basel III (Basel Capital Rules) 4.5% among other requirements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III
Basel III also specifies liquidity requirements, which basically means banks need to hold sufficient loan assets in the government or central bank (generally bonds or reserves respectively), which act as a backstop if other banks stop lending to them (i.e. stop accepting deposit transfers without also being given an equivalent asset).
At the point I make a loan, 2 things happen on my balance sheet: I have a new liability to you (the increased balance in your account), and I have a new asset (the loan that you’re expected to pay back). They cancel each other out and it therefore seems as if I’m creating money out of thin air.
However, the moment you actually use that money (eg to buy something), the money leaves the bank (unless the other account is also at this bank, but let’s keep it simple). Liabilities on the balance sheet shrink, so assets need to follow. That needs to come from reserves because the loan asset keeps its original value.
The reserve comes from the bank, not from you. Added layer here: Banks can borrow money from each other or central banks if their cash reserves runs low.
Finally: it tends to be the case that the limit on lending is not the reserves, but on the capital constraints. Banks need to retain capital for each loan they make. This is weighed against the risk of these loans. For example: you could lend a lot more in mortgages than in business loans without collateral. Ask your favorite LLM to explain RWAs and Basel III for more.
> However, the moment you actually use that money (eg to buy something), the money leaves the bank (unless the other account is also at this bank, but let’s keep it simple). Liabilities on the balance sheet shrink, so assets need to follow. That needs to come from reserves because the loan asset keeps its original value.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler."
You're omitting the thing that causes the money to be created out of thin air. If the other account is at the same bank, now that customer has money in their account that didn't previously exist. And the same thing happens even if the money goes to a customer at another bank -- then that bank's customer has money in their account that didn't previously exist. Even if some reserves are transferred from one bank to another, the total reserves across the whole banking system haven't changed, but the total amount of money on deposit has. And the transfers into and out of the average bank are going to net to zero.
The created money gets destroyed when the loan is paid back, but the total amount of debt generally increases over time so the amount of debt-created money goes up over time as banks make new loans faster than borrowers pay them back.
Your loan is loan+interest;
when your loan is created, we do not create the interest-part on it - the interest-part is the rest that you have to pull from someone else, since bank gives you loan X - but asks loan X + interest Y back from you -> thats the reason why there needs to be another fool somewhere else who is then again taking a loan.
its one of the main architectural choices of our money architecture :-D
Only the loan principal is destroyed when it's paid back. The interest goes to the bank, which then gets to spend it or distribute it to shareholders who then get to spend it etc.
Suppose a mechanic takes out a mortgage to buy a house. The bank uses the interest on the loan to pay part of the bank manager's salary. Then the bank manager pays the mechanic to fix his car. Nobody inherently has to take out another loan for the borrower to pay back the bank.
The main reason debt keeps going up is that housing prices keep getting less and less affordable, requiring people to take on more and more debt to buy a house or pay rent.
>>
The reserve comes from the bank, not from you. Added layer here: Banks can borrow money from each other or central banks if their cash reserves runs low.
<<
Not correct: it can be both - on your central banking account, you can receive money from other banks (lending on the "interbanking market") _or_ customers (when they send money to your bank).
Yes, they do not need customer deposits to create loans and increase their balance sheet, there are just some guys like you and me, putting the amount in the balance sheet and clicking save (simply put)
But yes, they need to have at least some customer deposists to make payments happen, since if they do not have any deposits, their central banking account would be empty, therefore none of your loans could actually leave your bank since the transaction wont happen.
(i'm talking from perspective of TARGET2 / ECB / EURO system)
That is exactly what happens. Reserve ratio used to be 10%, same as your example. The reserve ratio is currently zero, lowered in 2020 during pandemics. But banks still can't lend out more than deposits.
> The reserve ratio is currently zero, lowered in 2020 during pandemics.
I saw this during the pandemic, and it bewildered me how little coverage of it there was. How is this not going to cause another financial catastrophe? And if we're so sure it isn't, then what makes people think they under economics so well, given that they clearly thought a minimum was necessary just a few years ago?
> I saw this during the pandemic, and it bewildered me how little coverage of it there was. How is this not going to cause another financial catastrophe?
The banks in Australia, Canada, etc have had zero reserve requirements for thirty years:
The US had reserve requirements leading up to the 2008 GFC which started off with mortgages/loans, and yet those requirement didn't stop the disaster. Canada et al did not have requirements, and yet it didn't have a financial meltdown (not itself, only as 'collateral damage' to what happened in the US).
Because what matters is _Capital_ requirements, which differ by the _risk_ of the loan. A bank's Capital is what limits their ability to lend. Reserve requirements are irrelevant in the modern banking system.
the do lend out more than they have _currently_ as deposits on their central banking accounts, you have to care about "duration transformation" - JPM has billions of loans and deposits, though most of the deposits may be currently "out of the house" (borrowed)
Now, for sure could JPM increase the balance sheet even more by another loan, if they still meet whatever balance-sheet-restrictions and if they have enough money on their central banking account.
(sure, if the loan is for a customer within the same institution, then there is no difference)
In fractional reserve banking, money that is loaned out is accounted for as liabilities. These liabilities subtract from the overall balance stored (reserved) at the bank. The bank is not printing money new money, no matter how many times this idea gets repeated by people who are, ironically, pumping crypto coins that were printed out of thin air.
I think it’s incredible that cryptocurrencies were literally manifested out of bits, but the same people try to criticize banks for doing this same thing (which they don’t).