Topic: Should we be scared of zero reserve banking? (Read 355 times)

This is exactly one of the misconceptions I mentioned above.

Banks must stay liquid to operate. This means, if they lend money to "anyone", also those who don't present them proper backing/security, they risk that the loans are not paid back, and that they become illiquid and go bankrupt. Normally, this simple mechanism prevents banks to lend money to "anyone".

The problem is on two fronts:
- Errors in risk management - this led to the crisis 2007-09, because some financial products which should have been rated like trash were rated almost like state-backed bonds. Laws since then have been revised to prevent that problem. I doubt however it can be solved entirely.
- the "too big too fail" problem - if a bank is big enough it can speculate on the State always trying to save it from liquidity problems.

None of these problems can be solved directly by a mandatory central bank money reserve of 1% or even 10%. As I wrote above, a reserve requirement of 1% like in the Eurozone does not affect the loan activity of a bank at all. The 10% in the US was only valid for big banks, smaller banks had 3%. A 50% or 100% reserve would solve the problem perhaps, but lead to a ton of other problems (it would basically be a way back to a centrally planned economy, and thus extremely inefficient).

I see current banking as problematic, but not because they "can create money out of thin air", but more because of their weight in the financial system which could be much lower if Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were used instead of fiat. They're a sector of economy that is a bit like a circlejerk, and not really necessary (at least not in the current size). Thus I'm looking for ways to make Bitcoin an alternative to banks.

Lowering the bank’s reserve to zero is really terrifying. It poses a great risk to the clients money deposited in the bank.

When we talk about zero bank reserve requirement, it means that the bank can produce money infinitely and lend it to whoever needs it. It may sound a very nice to the ears, as it can support the economy of a country, but it comes with a high consequence.

In zero bank reserve, the banks can let many accounts loan money as long as they can, without consulting anyone. It does benefit those lower class people that needs financial help. However, when the depositors want to withdraw their money, they won’t be able to do so because the bank don’t have the money on hand since they lended it to other clients. Here comes the disadvantage to those who entrusted their money to the banks. They can’t withdraw their money fully all at the same time because the bank will face bankruptcy.

This is scary especially if you’re entrusting all of your hard-earned money to a bank. When a crisis comes and you need a large sum of money, you can’t withdraw it in an instant regardless of how much you have in your account. This put the clients in an unfavorable scenario. Like what happened way back 2015 in Greece wherein they limited the withdrawal to 60 euros per account in a day.

Honestly it wasn't that perfect before neither, don't get me wrong this is even worse now, we are talking about a student getting 40 out of 100 back in the day and now getting 20 out of 100, he failed the class before and he is still failing, but at that point you really do not care what point you fail with as long as you got an F, which means if they really want to move to zero reserve they can do that, nobody would say anything because it makes no sense anyway.

What would be awesome is allowing banks only to deal with money they have, if they want to give out a loan, have that loan on reserves, if you want to buy shares of a company, have that much money and actually give them the money itself, not some digital number changes from one account to another. Long story short we just went from bad to horrible.

Does it really matters if you have few percent of what you lent out in your bank or zero percent? In both cases those are just numbers in a ledger and nothing else.

FED will always be there to defend those banks because they are the banks and they are the same people who used to be in those banks. You think FED is some place that is filled with human who hate banks or who are just natural towards banks?

Those are the people who have done CEO jobs at these banks, so if anything goes bad they would just print out money and help their friends out, that is why zero reserve banking is great for banks, they can work a lot better and make a lot more profits and can be a lot more risky with their investments but in the end if anything bad happens they know they will be saved.

Believe me, let couple banks bankrupt and hurt the economy a bit and things will be horrible for short term but in long term those banks will have to be much more careful and not hurt peoples economy.

That's exactly what FIAT is. (most of hem anyway)

Money is money only if it is backed by real commodities. What is a real commodity? Most well known ones are Gold, Silver and Oil.

PetroDollar is kinda backed by oil actually but it is not really official like Bretton Woods and they can print whenever they want to which sucks. Still, if the USD has this much power right now, it owes this power to the petro dollar system.

How do they do when a bank has no reserves when customers withdraw large sums of money. I think this approach disrupts the way traditional banks did in the past. Looks like the way bitcoin works, without any reserves. But the problem is that they hold someone else's money, and no reserves mean no immediate liquidity.

I do not see any threat to the US banking system in the fact that they will not have sufficient reserves for their work. The entire banking system works as a single system and, if necessary, they can transfer funds from one bank to another rather quickly. For a country that has not secured its paper money for more than forty years, there is nothing unexpected in such a decision.

I don't think there will be anything to fear from zero reserve banking if the banking system takes a much tougher line on money printing. Here the system of government must be correct if the legal system is good everything can be cured. There will also be a civil lawsuit in the Southern District Court of the United States to recover the reserve theft money and eventually prosecute the culprits. The lawsuit will be filed by a US legal aid agency appointed by the central bank.

What I'm afraid of is that banks can print money arbitrarily, because FED is privately owned. even though everything uses reports as an accountability but if the bank is without reserves then I better choose my gold which is clearly valued than a piece of paper.

I assume it's to prevent a liquidity crisis in the banking system. Any lowering of the reserve requirement creates lending liquidity by definition, so it's one of the steps the Fed can take to prevent a 2008-type scenario. And yes I assume in the worst case scenario the Fed will just print more money and step in as the lender of last resort.

If only some anonymous genius invented a ground-breaking, decentralized, self-sovereign currency that the government cannot control, and censor. I believe that would be what the world has to have right now.

Q: "Should we be scared of zero reserve banking?"
A: If about bank run. It depends on whether the banks can manage their reserve or not. Removing the requirement doesn't mean there will be an empty vault because banks still have to honor day-to-day withdrawals.

Source.

Source.

The central bank wants to flood the economy with fiat at the moment to (artificially) move the economy; therefore, the high inflation rate is scarier than the risk of a bank run IMO.

There are a lot of misconceptions about banking in general. Exemplary I will comment some of the inaccuracies in the following post (which nevertheless is one of the best contributions in this thread).

This is only partially correct, because in most cases there is no cash deposit involved. A more correct formulation is that "the bank must own X% (the reserve rate) of central bank money* - which can be cash or a loan from the central bank - for each dollar/euro/whatever existing in the bank's accounts".

To show the difference: Often people create an account at a bank and transfer money from another bank account to it. To "back" this money according to the fractional reserve rate, the bank must then acquire X% of central bank money - but only if there is not an equivalent movement of funds to another bank.

Often these movements all "equilibrate" themselves because there are much more transfers between bank accounts than cash withdrawals.

Now to loans: a loan doesn't mean that the bank "gives out cash" to someone, but it credits the required amount to an account in the same bank. This again means that the bank must acquire central bank money of X% of the loan - again, if there are transfers to other banks for the same amount, there is no need for it.

After the amount is credited to the customer's account, several things can happen:
1) The borrower can use the money to pay someone who has money at the same bank. This means that once the bank has ensured it owns the central bank money to "back" the loan, no more central bank money is needed.
2) The borrower pays someone who has money at another bank. This case is the most frequent one. This means that the bank actually can reduce the reserves (if there are no transfers for the same amount towards the bank) but its liquidity is reduced.
3) The borrower extracts the money as cash. This is relatively uncommon. In this case, the bank has to acquire again, more central bank money, as the cash amount reduces the bank's reserves.

There can be two different situations:
- If users "withdraw cash", they need more central bank money. What they would normally do is to increase their deposits at the central bank (=take another loan from the central bank).
- But if customers withdraw money to another banks, then the banks will have, once the transfer is cleared, actually less liabilities, and can decrease their holdings on central bank accounts. But they have also reduced their liquidity.


The author of the blog post - while not an economist, it seems - is correct: in March 2020 the fractional reserve system was abolished in the US by the Fed in its current form.

Is it scary? Well, at a first glance it might seem that yes - but I read that banks in the US, before the abolition of the mandatory reserve, actually owned an excess of trillions of dollars of central bank money. The Fed is paying interests for these reserves, and thus it gives incentives to banks to "park" money at the central bank. It seems that this is at least as effective than simply requiring 10%, or 3% (for smaller banks). So they may have thought that the minimum fractional reserve is no longer needed.

In Europe, for decades now, the required fractional reserve is as low as 1%. This doesn't limit, practically, loans given out by banks, and also in the Eurozone banks actually banks own much more central bank money than required by the ECB fractional reserve policy.


*Most of the time there is more "central bank money" deposited on the banks' accounts at the central bank, than the amount of cash they have available. To obtain these central bank loans the banks deposit securities and other assets, like bonds or stocks, at the central bank.

Nor do I, and I clearly remember the banking crisis of 2008-09 and the recession that followed.  The US government was making banks do "stress tests" after the bailouts to make sure they were capitalized enough to survive shocks to the system, i.e., to prevent another debacle that those toxic, dumb, but extremely popular mortgage products created in the first place. 

It's bewildering to me why the same US government would now allow banks to have a zero reserve requirement, unless the FDIC insurance money is just going to get printed by the Fed as needed.  The United States has gotten used to creating money out of thin air without riots happening in the streets because of it, so maybe that's their plan.

I'm no economist, but from my understanding of what fractional reserve banking is, I think this is a bad move that's probably going to have serious consequences somewhere down the road.  The scary thing is that I'm not sure the people in charge of all this are thinking about anything that's down the road.

1000% we need to be worried about this.  As a citizen of the United States I'm currently scared out of my mind for the troubles that we are putting our self in.  Take a look at the United States national debt.  It has skyrocketed, essentially doubling since Trump took over the office of President.  Trump also removed the reserve laws that Obama had put in place for large financial institutions, which is a very scary proposition. That's part of the reason the stock market continued it's strong decent when Trump one.  Sure it's a great thing, short term.  Long term I fear these institutions as well as the fed reserve are going to get in over their heads and not be able to payout monies owed to their customers.

Fiat paper currency has always been like that. It isn't backed by anything but the government itself. The piece of paper has a value just because we all "believe" that it has value, but in reality it is just a piece of paper. Since it is backed by the government, they have total control over the currency and the economy. One small mistake by the government and they can ruin everything by making the piece of paper worthless.

I once read an article on Investopedia that stated "Fiat money is government-issued currency that is not backed by a physical commodity, such as gold or silver, but rather by the government that issued it." And with the new zero reserve banking can we say all the federal reserve claimed by the government are just lies created not gi make people scared.

The Federal Reserve moved all banks from fractional reserve system to zero reserve system is ridiculous. According to my research, the United States was extensively volatile in terms of economic before the implementation of the Federal Reserve and the implementation of zero reserve systems may lead to panic, national currency more devalue and a lot of investors may decide not to take the risk.
But, I don't understand why the government makes some decisions that could collapse the whole country.

As someone who have some few bank accounts each with something in them, this makes me uneasy. The gravity of this, should the worse comes to worst, is severe that it can turn into a full-blown economic depression with every sector in the economy affected. The banks wouldn't be held liable should a crash happen, and the users' money will just flow down the drain as if it wasn't theirs to begin with. That's why as much as it's a dumb thing to do as per my colleagues and my family, I've gone long into bitcoin and just kept whatever money I need in cash, and don't deposit money to my bank accounts anymore. No one can talk me over that decision, now that there isn't something I can recover should the banking system fail soonest.