The Vollgeld Initiative and the Future of Fractional Reserve Banking
The 2008 financial crisis jolted many of us out of our comfort zones, leading to the argument for a complete overhaul of the monetary and banking system. This very concept has recently been petitioned in Switzerland. Known as the Vollgeld Initiative, its primary objective is to separate money creation from fractional reserve banking. After receiving the requisite number of signatures, the initiative will be up for a public referendum in 2017 or 2018. If successful, it will be such a profound change that it is worthy of exploration.
Supporters of the initiative believe that it will strengthen the Swiss franc and make the banking system more stable. Their objectives are to separate cash creation and payment systems from lending; create a stable money supply; reduce the burden of personal and household debt; align risk and reward; and create a structure allowing banks to fail. These are, indeed, laudable goals.
Two of the most important proposed changes are 100% currency-backed deposits and government funding for commercial bank loans. In fact, the currency deposited at banks would never actually be a liability of the banks, but rather a singular liability of the federal government. Banks will earn a small fee for storing the cash and processing payments. Funding loans through the government will effectively concentrate its power, enabling it to serve primarily government and political interests, but not necessarily the well-being of the public.
The focus is on the commercial banking system. Lending exists wherever two parties come into a contract as borrower and lender. For example, insurance companies enter into contractual relationships all the time to lend money and earn interest in return. Likewise, investment banks use their balance sheets to structure and purchase, for example, mortgage-backed securities. In essence, they are funding loans. These are examples of “shadow banking” activities that work outside the traditional banking system, and these “shadow lenders” each have third-party funding. So, while commercial banking itself could be tamed and harnessed by the initiative, it is silent on how shadow banking might be affected. Human nature being what it is, the lending function is likely to shift more heavily into the shadow banking sector.
In terms of systemic risk, the causes of systemic instability include: leverage, interdependence and buffers. While proponents want leverage in the commercial banking sector to diminish, it is not clear what might happen as a result. In order to get an adequate return on capital, commercial banks may be forced to lever up through third-party funding sources (not deposits). The initiative is also silent as to how leverage might manifest itself in other sectors, such as investment banks and other financial intermediaries.
Regardless, commercial banks will each be beholden to a singular funding source (i.e., the treasury), thus elevating the interdependence of the entire system. Mistakes made by the government will immediately be propagated throughout the financial network. Finally, the Vollgeld plan is silent on buffers. It is unclear how much capital banks and other financial institutions may hold, or how much collateral may be required for financial transactions. Consequently, if the effect of Vollgeld is negative, both the private and public sector may then reduce buffers in order to achieve higher growth rates, causing further systemic instability.
Would an end to fractional reserve banking be, on balance, a positive or negative development for capital markets or investors?
It appears that CFA Institute Financial NewsBrief readers are concerned about the adverse consequences of the Vollgeld Initiative. When asked, “Would an end to fractional reserve banking be, on balance, a positive or negative development for capital markets or investors?” our respondents answered overwhelming in the negative. Of the 437 participants, almost 58% said it would be negative, while only 19% suggested it would be positive. The rest were undecided. For a more complete examination of the Vollgeld Initiative and what it might mean for the future of fractional reserve banking, Dirk Niepelt, director of the Study Center Gerzensee and professor at the University of Bern, and I debate its merits:
If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe toEnterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.
