Has Bank Supervision Been in Conflict With Monetary Policy

Abstract

IN a recent article in this REVIEW 2 Mr. Robert V. Rosa refers to discussions of relation of bank supervision to by E. A. Goldenweiser, G. L. Bach, and a Subcommittee of Joint Committee on Economic Report. supervision is one of intangibles of control that has attracted considerable attention. . . Although none of writers would appear to believe that supervision can practicably serve as an active arm of and credit policy, Bach does rightly stress great importance of preventing bank supervision from going counter to in periods. 3 Bank supervisory has probably accentuated deflationary tendencies at times; and at other times relaxation of supervisory standards has tended to remove restraints on bank credit expansion. However, assumption of Bach, which seems to be prevalent, that in critical periods influence of bank supervision was directly counter to policy needs mnore scrutiny than has been given to it. This article is an examination of this assurmption period of late I920'S and I930's.' XVhether bank supervisory has been in conflict with depends in part on meaning attached to term monetary poticy. If is defined as government and central bank actions designed to influence rates of interest, or certain specific rates such as Federal Reserve discount rates, it can of course be said that supervisory during at least a portion of I929-33 period was in conflict with monetary policy. However, such a narrow interpretation of misses heart of problem of relation of to business activity and degree of full employment. Manipulation of or pressure on interest rates is not only method, and past decades has not been principal method, of influencing quantity of money or circulating medium, of which by far greater part now consists of obligations of banks in form of deposits. Under fractional reserve system as it developed in United States in nineteenth century, banks tended to expand their earning assets and deposits to limit permitted by reserves, as defined by law, available to them. This practice continued after establishment of Federal Reserve System, and in fact still continues. That is to say, Federal Reserve member banks do not as a general practice maintain more (reserves in of those required by law) than are needed use as clearing balances at Federal Reserve banks. special circumstances of period from I934 to I942, when this practice was interrupted or only partially followed and excess reserves were abnormally large, are discussed below. On June 30, I 9I7, legal of banks which were members of Federal Reserve System were fully concentrated in Federal Reserve banks. Since that date of member banks have consisted solely of deposit balances in Federal Reserve banks. aggregate amount of these balances depends on volume of assets held by Federal Reserve banks in of other liabilities, including capital accounts, of Federal Reserve banks. Consequently, since I9I7 most important influence on money supply-and during most of period since that date dominant influence is volume of assets held by Federal Reserve banks. It is not an exaggeration to say that has consisted primarily of asset acquisition and relinauishment Dolicies of Federal Reserve f' e opinions expressed in this article represent personal views only. 2 Robert V. Rosa, The Revival of Monetary Policy, this REVIEW, XXXIII (February 1951), 29-37. 'Ibid., p. 35. 'In Federal Reserve Policy-Making (New York, I950), which is work of Professor Bach to which Mr. Rosa refers, specific mention is made of I929-I933 period (p. 251). Reference is also made to cognizance for at least last decade or two of the cross-implications of banksupervisory and policies (p. 250).