Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Iceland thinks about ending fractional reserve system

Go here for for a link.

Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal - removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank.
The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for Iceland". 

The proposal reads just like Martin Wolf's book:


Because savers can expect that the state will step in and guarantee
their deposits, the deposits of all banks become ‘risk-free’ to savers.
Savers will therefore deposit their money with the bank that offers the
highest rate with little consideration of the risk taken by the bank.
Bank managers must therefore compete for customers, based mostly
on interest rates, but not on how solid the bank is. The implied state
guarantee therefore encourages risky lending, which in turn increases
the risk of more bank failures and crisis.  .....  In a Sovereign Money System 
the amount of money in the economy is controlled directly by the Central Bank, 
preventing private banks from expanding it.
The pro-cyclical expansion of the money supply by private banks will
be made impossible. Instead, the Central Bank will increase the money
supply in proportion with the overall growth of the economy and to
meet inflation targets.  Crucially, the power to create money is kept separate from the power
to decide how that new money is used, thereby ensuring that conflicts
of interest do not lead to too much (or too little) money being created,
or money being created for private, rather than public, benefit.
The risk of sudden bank runs is greatly reduced. Deposits on
Investment Accounts have maturities that are distributed over a
longer period, allowing banks time to liquidate assets if needed.
Deposits in Transaction Accounts are protected in a bank failure as
they are kept at the Central Bank, on behalf of the customers, and are
separate from the failing bank’s own assets. A deposit guarantee
scheme is therefore not necessary for Transaction Accounts.
 
What do you think? 

5 comments:

  1. A lot of the first part of sounds like a problem of moral hazard, with savers assuming the state will step in and guarantee their deposits. One of the things that I would be nervous about regarding the proposal is putting so much sole power in the central bank to be the only creator of money. At least, though, Mr Sigurjonsson states that the power to create money is kept separate from the power to decide how that money is used, thereby eliminating some conflict of interest. In troubled times, this seems like a measure to change an enormous problem with crises. It could be smart given Iceland's past but I would be nervous about the amount of power being given.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would work if the distribution system of the central bank is effective. For some reason I keep thinking it would turn out like USSR's system to distribute food/supplies back in the days ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this sounds like a good plan. Sure there are some worries that it may not work how they want, or that its a very radical change, but at least they are making a change. As we've been reading in Wolf, there obviously needs to be a change in the financial system to try to avoid another crisis. Iceland is a small enough country to be able to pull off this move, and so I think it should. It will be very interesting to see how it unfolds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is an interesting plan and I look forward to following the path Iceland does take and whether it does turn all of the power over to the central bank. I do have my apprehensions, but I think Iceland is a small enough country that it could make this revolutionary monetary proposal work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is very interesting, especially after our class this Tuesday when we were discussing about different proposals for change. I'm wondering if this new system is entirely "risk-free", as banks now know that the state will always "rescue" them from bank runs. Wouldn't this then give way to more risky lend?

    ReplyDelete