speeches · October 30, 1949
Speech
Chester C. Davis · Governor
BANKS - AND CENTRAL BANKS
Address by
Chester C. Davis
President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Before the
National Bank Division of the
American Bankers Association
Palace Hotel
San Francisco, California
Monday afternoon, October 31, 1949
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANKS - AND CENTRAL BANKS
l/[y subject today is "Banks - and Central Banks". From that taking-
off point I want to point out a few major differences between central banks
and commercial banks, some of the responsibilities they share in common, and
to emphasize, perhaps, the effect of their operations on the level and health
of our economic life. I do not intend to give you the answers to the questions
I raise - as a matter of fact I am not sure of the answers myself. But I do
believe that the problems involved in the relationship of the commercial bank
ing system with the Federal Reserve should be examined clearly, objectively,
and with candor and good humor. In that spirit the commercial banks and the
central bank can function rationally and with mutual understanding.
The United States economy is a money economy. Most of the great
civilizations of the world have used money and credit in one form or another
and have found it invaluable in promoting efficiency and a higher standard
of living. In view of that long experience, therefore, it is a little sur
prising that the general field of money, credit and banking is not well
understood, that there is so much fuzzy thinking in connection with it.
Someone once said that there are more people who know more things that are
not so about money, credit and banking than is true of any other subject in
man's experience.
When the Constitution was adopted, conferring on Congress the power
to coin money and regulate the value thereof, no one dreamed of checkbook
money in the modern sense. Today bank deposits account for $140 billions of
our astronomical money supply of over $165 billions; currency outside banks,
for $25 billions. In the year the Federal Reserve Banks were organized, total
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
bank deposits were less than $20 billions, money in circulation outside banks
less than $4 billions. Then, only 35 years ago, the public debt of the United
States was less than one billion dollars; today it is over $250 billions, it
is growing, and it dominates the monetary picture here at home.
In todayTs complex economy even the term money is not defined in
simple, universal language, so I hasten to explain that in my figures I lijmped
currency in circulation and bank deposits together and called the total our
money supply. Most people would classify as money the currency and coin held
outside the Treasury and the banks - that's $25 billions. But you can convert
your demand deposit at the bank to currency merely by signing your name, and
95 per cent of all money settlements are made by check, anyway, so obviously
the deposits subject to check have to be counted as part of the money supply.
That's $83 billions more - or $108 billions. You might draw the line here,
but there1s another $58 billions or so in savings accounts which can be con
verted into currency or checking accounts without much trouble, and some would
think of that as money, too - bringing the supply to over $165 billions. Then
there are $56 billions in savings bonds outstanding, redeemable on demand.
Are they money? Let's stop before we get that far.
This year, then, the rough total of bank deposits and currency is
$165 billions; 10 years ago the total was $60 billions. How did the increase
come about? Bank loans and investments increased $83 billions in that decade,
from $50 billions to $133 billions, mostly in U. S. Government securities.
Federal Reserve Bank holdings of government securities increased more than
$20 billions in the decade, from the $2^- billions owned in 1939. The answer
lies in that combined total increase of over $100 billions in debt owed to
the private banks and the Reserve banks, mostly by the government.
The reserves which made possible the wartime expansion of bank credit,
of the money supply, came partly from the big gold inflow which continued
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
through the fthirties until the war checked it, but mostly from deliberate
Federal Reserve policy to keep the banks supplied with reserves in order that
they might be in position to finance the war to the extent not covered by
taxation and by bond sales to private investors. That national policy was
carried out by the Federal Reserve System working with and through the com
mercial banks.
After this preliminary glance at our money supply, let us take up
the role of the commercial banks in its creation and management. Their
primary functions are the accumulation and the lending of funds. Thus they
deal with money and credit, and in gathering and lending funds perform a basic
and useful service that contributes to economic well-being. So, you might
say, do insurance companies, mutual savings banks, and other financial insti
tutions. But the commercial banking system is unique among financial insti
tutions in that it can lend not only the funds it accumulates from thousands
of stockholders and millions of depositors, but it can create new funds through
its lending process. It can do this because commercial banking in this country
operates on a fractional reserve principle and because our economy operates
mainly with checkbook money rather than with currency and coin.
All this is so elementary that it may be out of place in this group
to state the fact that deposits are created as bank credit expands, as loans
and investments by banks increase. Deposits are erased as bank credit con
tracts, as their loans and investments shrink. The growth of deposits is made
possible by the availability of reserves to the banking system for leans and
investment; conversely the contraction of deposits may be caused by the with
drawal of reserves.
The unique power of the commercial banking system to create or
extinguish deposits carries with it a major responsibility to maintain the
supply of money needed to carry on high level economic activity. If the supply
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
is too large it will lead toward price inflation; if it is too small it will
lead toward deflation. The commercial banking system makes a major contribu
tion to the efficient functioning of our economy when it avoids either extreme;
when the supply of money and credit is in reasonable balance with the supply
of goods and services and the flow of income and expenditures.
This is a very large order. At times the total responsibility may
conflict with the incentives and principles that ordinarily shape individual
bank policy. In an inflationary period, even though restraint on further
expansion of the money supply may be desirable, it is not reasonable to expect
banks to overlook good loan and investment opportunities if lendable reserves
are at hand. In a depression, very naturally caution becomes more pronounced
in bank management policy, even though the tightening-up process enlarges
over-all difficulties by contracting the supply of money.
There are more than 14,000 banks with almost 4,500 branches in the
banking system in this country. These generally have a fine spirit of coop
eration and an extremely high degree of organization on national, state and
regional levels. Even so it is not likely that the sum of the acts of these
thousands of individual banks, each with its responsibility running first to
its depositors and stockholders and second to the economy as a whole, will
match their total responsibility for the country's money supply.
Here's where the central bank enters the picture. The governmental
responsibility for regulating the money supply has been delegated in large
measure to the Federal Reserve System which is the central bank of this nation.
Let me emphasize something here which I think most bankers are prone to over
look. Allan Sproul will, I think, discuss it more Ailly at Wednesday's general
session, The development of a national credit and monetary policy is the
responsibility of the Federal Reserve System, made so by Congress. This is
not a divisible responsibility. In certain of its service and supervisory
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
functions the Federal Reserve shares a field in which many other agencies
operate, but not in its legal responsibility in the field of monetary control
in which its duties cover the whole of our economy and touch the lives of all
our people.
Like other central banks it exercises certain natural central banking
functions - it influences the volume of credit, provides an elastic currency
through the note issue of the Reserve Banks, rediscounts for member banks,
holds their reserves, acts as a nationwide clearing house for bank checks, and
serves as fiscal agency for the U. S. Treasury and other government agencies.
In organization it is not quite like any other central bank in the
world. It is peculiarly a United States institution designed to work in this
country. It is a federal system - a national institution with a regional
organization. The Reserve Banks are privately owned by the member banks but
except for the 6 per cent dividend on their stock fixed by law they do not
share in earnings which, after reserves, pass into the U. S. Treasury. The
system is designed to operate in the public interest.
Aside from its important but routine services, the principal purpose
of the Federal Reserve System is to influence, in the public interest, the
supply, availability and cost of money. The statute spells out rather
meagerly the guides to Federal Reserve policy. Thus discount rate changes
are to be made "with the view of accommodating commerce and business"; open
market operations are given that objective with the added requirement that
they be conducted "with regard to their bearing upon the general credit
situation of the country". Changes in reserve requirements are to be made
"in order to prevent injurious credit expansion or contraction". The Board
of Governors has stated the principal purposes of the System to be
regulation of the "supply, availability and cost of money with a view to
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
and a rising standard of living11 • Any way you state it, the objective is
broad.
Now I come to the most difficult part of my talk, or of any talk
or article about money - the part bank reserves play in the contraction or
expansion of the money supply* To influence the supply, availability and
cost of money the Federal Reserve depends mainly on its ability to increase
or decrease bank reserves, which constitute the legally required basis of
bank credit or money* It not only calls attention to the need for expanding
or contracting credit, but it tries to see that appropriate steps are taken,
working with and through the commercial banks to expand or contract bank
reserves. It is an understatement to say that generally the commercial banks
don't like restrictive action on their reserves*
It is not necessary to explain to this group how, under the legally
required fractional reserve system in effect in this nation, total loans and
investments of banks can be expanded to a point several times the amount of
the reserve required but cannot go beyond that point unless new reserves be
come available* System action to influence the volume of bank reserves is
along two lines• (1) Within the limits fixed by Congress, it may change
the legally required reserve ratios. Given the same volume of reserves,
a legal reserve ratio of 20 per cent obviously will support only half as
large deposits as one of 10 per cent. (2) It may set out to increase or
decrease the actual amount of reserves available to the banking system*
It does this mainly by buying or selling government securities in
the open market - this is called the "open market operations"* When the
System buys government securities, it adds to bank reserves; when it sells
government securities, it contracts bank reserves * Or it makes direct
credit available to its member banks by lending on their assets. When
member banks borrow, the funds are placed in their reserve accounts and thus
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
increase reserves. When the borrowings are repaid, the banks draw on their
reserve accounts which thus are reduced.
There is a widely-held notion - even among bankers - that the
Federal Reserve Banks get their power to buy and own investments from the
reserve deposits of member banks. This is not the case. Their ability
to buy investments - to extend credit either in the form of reserve note
currency or deposits in the reserve accounts - is derived from a statutory
grant and not from the deposits entrusted to them by member banks. This
is inherent in the very nature of a central bank; it is an importan tdis
tinction between the central bank and the commercial bank of deposit.
Traditionally a central bank works as follows. If the general
economic situation seems to be inflationary - in other words, if the supply
of money seems to be outrunning the supply of goods and services immediately
available - the central bank wishes to see that supply of money contracted or
its expansion halted. Therefore, it attempts to put pressure on bank
reserves. It attempts to reduce their volume by selling government securities,
by making it more difficult for banks to borrow, or it attempts to raise
reserve ratios so that credit can expand by a smaller amount on the same
volume of reserves. Thus it puts on the brakes. It attempts to hold some
of the inflationary forces in check.
In a deflationary situation the System adds to the volume of bank
reserves to make money easier. System restrictive action tends to be more
directly effective than its expansionary action. And since Federal Reserve
action normally runs counter to the way the economy is running, the central
bank tends to be unpopular all of the time. It is always going against the
stream, When times are booming, its policy is to tighten down and hold
the boom to reasonable proportions as far as monetary action can affect it.
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
After allj the public agency which is given this responsibility
by the government should not seek popularity, but understanding. The public,
including the bankers, frequently becomes irritated over Federal Reserve
actions. They should be judged in the light of the fact that as long as we
have a money economy some public body will have this job to do. Perhaps some
better agency can be devised than the Federal Reserve System; perhaps a better
job could be done than has been or is now being done. But whatever the agency,
if it met its rewSponsibilities it would never be popular. It would be best
off with public understanding and respect.
It is of extreme importance that the responsibility and purpose of
the System shall be administered so as to affect the economy impartially.
The Congress confers broad powers upon the Federal Reserve System, which in
turn attempts to set broad limits to the money supply and the cost and
availability of credit in the aggregate. Within those limits the individual
banks operate as they see fit - subject, of course, to the law and bank
supervisory authorities.
So far I have discussed in a hit-or-miss fashion the past and
present functions and responsibilities of the banking system and the central
bank, Viewed objectively they are parts of the same picture, in essential
harmony both with each other and with the free enterprise system as we know
it. Central bank action does not determine what an individual bank or an
individual borrower may or may not do - at the most it merely sets broad and
impartial limits to action.
But successful institutions must change to meet changing economic
conditions. Since the outbreak of war, because of special circumstances,
the Federal Reserve System has not always been equipped to deal adequately
with very sharply changing economic conditions. Today we face a situation
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
different from that of a year ago when the economy was still in an inflat
ionary phase. Next year may again be different. Federal Reserve System
powers to deal with deflation, as far as monetary authority can cope with
it, are much more adequate than they were 20 years ago when the depression
of the fthirties set in. We can provide funds when needed by the market.
A major deficiency of the banking system that aggravated business conditions
in the past thus no longer exists. For practical purposes we have virtually
unlimited means of supplying the market with additional reserves. On the
basis of existing legal requirements we could more than double ou rout
standing note and deposit liabilities. We also can lend to banks on many
more classes of assets than was possible before 1935. The System also can
reduce reserve requirements substantially if that should prove to be necessary.
But sometime in the future should inflationary conditions resume,
the System will find itself back in the straight jacket which it occupied
recently - powerless while it exercises its responsibility for stability in
the government bond market, to offset forces that make for monetary inflation.
I am sure I need not discuss in any detail the much disputed question of
credit control vs. support of the government security market. But it brings
up a point that is not too well appreciated. The Federal Reserve System has
been criticized as being subservient to the Treasury, and for not acting
independently, with its support of the government security market cited as an
example.
I want to range myself on the side of those who say that in prin
ciple the central bank should be independent in its action. I think that
control over the banking systemTs unique power to expand or contract the
money supply can best be administered, not by one of the departments of govern
ment nor by private business, but by a central bank set up independently and
made responsible to the Congress. But while agreeing with the principle,
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
I must say that in practice it is impossible to separate the central bank
from the impact of Treasury decisions, and equally impossible to separate the
Treasury from the impact of central bank action. With a debt and a budget of
the size they are today it is unrealistic to assume that the Federal Reserve
System can act as though they did not exist or were of 1930 dimensions.
Support of the government security market in 1947 and 1948 was a Federal Re
serve policy determined after full consultation with the Treasury and carried
out with full realization of its implications. To the best of my knowledge
no important dissent to that policy was voiced within the System.
Treasury policy and Federal Reserve policy are inseparably linked -
they cannot ignore each other. Each is dependent upon the other. There have
been, and probably will be more, differences of opinion as to specific actions •
perhaps as to over-all policy. These differences have to be resolved before
either monetary policy or fiscal policy can be made to work.
We are going to face plenty of new problems in the years ahead.
Some signs are apparent now. I think the main thing that kept us out of
trouble in the past was the horse sense and self-restraint of the American
people. We didn't reach the point where we were ready to throw the dollar
overboard in a speculative scramble for goods. As individuals we still exhibit
that restraint. Collectively, acting through government, we arenft doing so
well. LetTs take a look at the record.
With production, employment and national income at an extremely high
peacetime level, highest on record except when compared with 1948, the central
government is spending more than it collects in taxes. In other words, we are
adding to our national debt when we ought to be paying it off. Item by item,
the purposes that call for the staggering total of public expenditures have
their strong supporters, but we canft afford them ail - not unless we are ready
to pay a lot more in taxes than we are paying.
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
This is no time to be adding to the public debt. If we can't make
ends meet now, what resistance can we possibly oppose to far greater deficits
under less favorable economic conditions than now? This trouble is funda
mental. No monetary study could cure it. It can be corrected only by public
opinion brought to bear on executive and legislative branches. At the moment
the public debt and the money supply seem to be on a one-way street, which
emphasizes the importance of an inventory of the traffic department.
Over forty years ago, following the money panic of 1907, Congress
created a National Monetary Commission from whose study and report came
impetus for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Since then the dimensions, even
the nature, of the problems involved in our money economy have changed
radically, but there has been no deliberate, studied overhauling of the
machinery through which governmental responsibilities mth respect to them are
administered. We have had a Topsy-like growth of agencies to deal with new
problems - now we need to sit back and take a hard look at our money situation
to see if we can come up with a better organized system.
We need a thorough-going reappraisal of the new set of circumstances
that have evolved in the monetary field in the past few years. This country
has grown great because it changed to meet changed conditions. Our banks
today are very different from the banks of fifty years ago - they had to
change as the country grew. Ho central bank today can operate as it did
prewar - and probably fifty years from now it mil operate differently than it
would today, even if today1s powers were adequate to meet today's problems.
The problem of harnessing the country's gigantic money supply to
serve a dynamic economy is a continuing and ever changing one. Wisdom, fore
sight and authority to act when action is called for, are required. Above
all else, an informed body of public opinion is needed. Most people, I am
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
as to its dangers. The problems in this field are not easy to discuss simply.
A national monetary study by an impartial and competent commission would be
worthwhile if it only threw light upon an area which to most of us is hope
lessly dark and confused. Until more and more people can be brought to under
stand some of these essentially dull but very important economic facts, central
monetary authorities cannot perform an adequate job.
Unless we move soon to take stock and make the necessary repairs,
we will continue to be like the lazy man with the leaky roof - when the
weather is nice the roof doesn!t need fixing, and when the storms hit, he
can't get out to fix it.
000OOO000
Digitized for FRASER
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cite this document
APA
Chester C. Davis (1949, October 30). Speech. Speeches, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19491031_davis
BibTeX
@misc{wtfs_speech_19491031_davis,
author = {Chester C. Davis},
title = {Speech},
year = {1949},
month = {Oct},
howpublished = {Speeches, Federal Reserve},
url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19491031_davis},
note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}