[kgwgk]

What the article says is that to lend out more than $900k it has to increase it reserves (maybe borrowing from other banks). Not that it can lend out $10m with just $1m in deposits.

“By attracting new deposits, the bank can increase its lending without running down its reserves, as shown in the third row of Figure 2. Alternatively, a bank can borrow from other banks or attract other forms of liabilities, at least temporarily. But whether through deposits or other liabilities, the bank would need to make sure it was attracting and retaining some kind of funds in order to keep expanding lending.”

[louloulou]

>through deposits or other liabilities

This is entirely the point. The money created goes back to the bank as deposits and new money is created on top of this.

i.e. 0.9^0+0.9^1+0.9^2+0.9^3+... = 10

[kgwgk]

The money created doesn’t necessarily go back to the bank. When you take a loan you use the money for something, not to keep it in an account at that bank.

It will typically end in another bank. Then the bank that gave you those $900k still has just $1m in reserves and cannot lend anymore. Unless it gets some deposits or additional funding from another bank (maybe the one where those $900k ended).

It seems we all agree that “if a bank has $1 million in deposits it can make only $900k in loans.” In the aggregate banking system there are now $900k more, some bank may use the reserves created by that deposit to lend $810k, etc.

That’s not the same as

how it works -> "if a bank has $1 million in deposits (of actual cash that people gave to the bank to put in their checking accounts) the bank can make $10 million in loans"

which is wrong.

[louloulou]

I'm afraid you're simply wrong and need to do some more research. There's no magical point in time where money is "in use". It is always credited to someone's bank account at any given point in time.

The baking system as a whole is leveraged about 9:1 based on the previous example. A bank deposit is a bank deposit, regardless of which bank it is at.

[kgwgk]

You didn’t say

"if the banking system as a whole has $1 million in deposits (of actual cash that people gave to the bank to put in their checking accounts) the system banking as a whole can make $10 million in loans" [and there will be in the end $11m in deposits in the banking system as a whole, offsetting the $1m in reserves and $10m in loans]

You said

"if a bank has $1 million in deposits (of actual cash that people gave to the bank to put in their checking accounts) the bank can make $10 million in loans" [which is wrong unless you assume that every loan remains in that bank as a deposit so the “banking system as a whole” case is recovered]

Of course that bank could get more reserves to be able to make additional loans. But then it could lend much more than $10m if it gets enough deposits/reserves! [One bank =/= The banking system as a whole]

Edit: by the way, I’m curious what is the thing in my previous comment that you find “simply wrong”.

[louloulou]

I mean apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying - but as far as I can tell you're claiming the leverage ratio for a bank is 0.9:1 and I'm saying it is 9:1. If that's the case only one of us can be correct.

It doesn't help that you're conflating the terms "deposits" and "reserves". Deposits are liabilities of the bank, while reserves are assets held in their account at the central bank.

If the banking system as a whole is leveraged 9:1, that implies each individual bank is leveraged approximately 9:1.

[Cats_In_Love]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/requiredreserves.asp

"Reserve Requirement Example As an example, assume a bank had $200 million in deposits and is required to hold 10%. The bank is now allowed to lend out $180 million, which drastically increases bank credit. In addition to providing a buffer against bank runs and a layer of liquidity, reserve requirements are also used as a monetary tool by the Federal Reserve. By increasing the reserve requirement, the Federal Reserve is essentially taking money out of the money supply and increasing the cost of credit. Lowering the reserve requirement pumps money into the economy by giving banks excess reserves, which promotes the expansion of bank credit and lowers rates."

[kgwgk]

What I’m saying is that if you create a bank and I make a $1m deposit [0] your bank has

  Liabilities : deposit $1m
  Assets : reserves $1m

Now you can lend $900k to someone, who takes the money and tranfers it to someone else’s account in another bank to buy bitcoins or whatever. Your bank has now

  Liabilities : deposit $1m
  Assets : reserves $100k, loan $900k

And you cannot make more loans until you increase your reserves which means getting new deposits (so we’re no longer talking about a bank with $1m in deposits).

Say you get an additional million in deposits, your bank has now

  Liabilities : deposits $2m
  Assets : reserves $1.1m, loan $900k

And it could lend and additional $900k.

Alternatively, it could get funding from another source like borrowing from banks of issuing bonds. For example

  Liabilities : deposit $1m, bond $1m
  Assets : reserves $1.1m, loan $900k

I don’t think any of this is controversial, let alone wrong. By the way, for simplicity in those balanced sheets the “reserves” is all the funding available which has not been lent, not just the required reserves ($100k for $1m in deposits, etc.)

> If the banking system as a whole is leveraged 9:1, that implies each individual bank is leveraged approximately 9:1.

One of the main points of the paper under discussion is that this doesn’t happen. Reserves are not a binding constraint on lending.

[0] I don’t know if it makes much sense to talk about whether it is “actual cash”. Maybe my employer took a loan to pay me, maybe not. Maybe it was in cash, maybe by cheque, maybe by bank transfer. Would that change anything?

[Cats_In_Love]

Referring to that 10% reserve requirement, understand that the is on DEPOSITs. The bank must retain 10% of it's deposits and can loan out 90% of it's deposits. When the bank makes a loan, that money becomes a deposit at another bank, for instance, the bank gives me a loan to purchase a car. That money goes to the person I have bought the car from and that person then deposits it in their bank. The bank they deposit it at could be the same bank I took my loan out from or it could be another bank. It depends on who I bought my car from. That deposit increases the total DEPOSITs at the bank where it is deposited. In the larger scheme of things, I am not the only person taking out loans and buying cars. So, in the greater scheme of things, while my borrowed money becomes a deposit in another bank, someone else borrowed money at another bank and deposited it at my bank. But a deposit is still a deposit, whether it is from a loan at the same bank or a loan from another bank. It doesn't matter. In theory, a bank could be getting all of the loans it makes back as deposits. That doesn't happen, though I question what happens when you buy a car from a Ford dealership and get a loan from Ford Financing. Regardless at no time has the bank ever made loans in excess of it's total deposits. The net result is that, through the magic of the money multiplier, because the banking systems deposits are increasing, iteratively, as loans become deposits, become loans, that 10% reserve requirement results in a money multiplier of 10. Every loan, because it is iteratively deposited back into the banking system, results in ten times as much money in deposits as there are in loans. So, lets see how that works. Bank 1 has $10 and loans out $9. (We will ignore where that initial $10 comes from for now). That $9 is deposited into bank 2 and now Bank 2 can loan out .9 * $9 or $8.10. That gets deposited into bank 3 that can now loan out .9*$8.1. If I remember my math from my economics studies, that becomes $100 in loans when all the bank loans are added up. $10 in an initial deposit becomes $100 in the money supply. But this does not mean that each individual bank is leveraged 9:1. No bank has loaned out 10 times it's deposits. It always has more deposits on account than it has outstanding loans. And keep in mind, it's loans are an asset. Deposits are a liability. Someone owes money to the bank when it makes a loan. The bank owes money to someone else, when they make a deposit. Because it has 10% of deposits on reserve, it always has 10% more assets than liabilities. Now, I don't know what you mean by "leveraged" 9:1, but if you mean that it has more liabilities than assets, this is not correct. If you are thinking that deposits are assets, then while I do get what you are thinking, they aren't. The deposits don't belong to the bank. It doesn't own that money. It has it on account, but it doesn't own it. Someone loans the bank money, the bank loans out the money it borrowed. It pays .01% on deposits, it charges 10% on it's loans.

Do, by all means, double check this. It's been quite a while since my studies so I had to work this out on the fly. I am generally more comfortable researching what I think I know then going over it again, and again, and again...... But I'm pretty sure that's right. It's in that deposits are liabilities and loans are assets things where, in working it through, I got that "oh!" moment.

It is an interesting thing, though. Because if you unwound all the deposits and all the loans in the economy, there would be no money in the money supply. All of it is dependent on loans and the money supply grows in response to the economy increasing. As the economy increases, there is a demand for more money. That demand results in more loans that results in an ever increasing supply of money.

It still weirds me out. But then, I do engineering, not money.

[iso1210]

> The money created doesn’t necessarily go back to the bank

Very little will be kept in a matress or burnt. Almost all will go back to a bank.

$1m in Bank A

$1m in bank B

Charlie borrows $900k from Bank B, gives to Dave, puts into Bank A

Eric borrows $900k from Bank A, gives to Felicity, who puts it in bank B.

[kgwgk]

"A bank" is not the same as "the bank".

In your example, the money borrowed by Charlie from B does later go back to bank B.

But if you remove the last transaction it doesn't.

Hence, it doesn't necessarily happen.

[iso1210]

Bank A $0 deposit

Bank B $1m deposit

Total deposits: $1m

Fred borrows $900k from Bank B and gives to Geraldine who puts it in Bank A

Bank A $900k deposit with no loan

Bank B $1m deposit with 900k loan (90%)

Total deposits $1.9m (90% above initial deposits)

Henry borrows 800k from Bank A and gives to Iris who puts it into Bank A

Bank A $1.7m with 800k loans (loans at 60%)

Bank B $1m deposit (loans at 90%)

Total deposits $2.7m (170% above initial deposits)

And the cycle continues, doesn't matter how many banks.

[kgwgk]

There is no cycle for bank B there.

It went from

  Bank B $1m deposit
  [$100k required reserves + $900k excess reserves] 

to

  Bank B $1m deposit with 900k loan (90%)
  [$100k required reserves + zero excess reserves]

and it's still there at the end. It doesn't have excess reserves, it cannot make new loans if it cannot get more money.

To be clear, my original comment was: "The money created doesn’t necessarily go back to the bank. When you take a loan you use the money for something, not to keep it in an account at that bank. It will typically end in another bank."

The bank =/= A bank

One bank =/= The banking system

[Of course when another bank gets more reserves it increases their capacity to extend new loans. The question was whether a bank with $1m in deposits can lend $9m, not whether the whole banking system could.]