Now two important practical conclusions are suggested by this analysis. The first is that the complaint of many farmers, merchants, politicians, and even scientific writers that too much money and bank-credit are at the disposal of Wall Street and other speculators rests on a misunderstanding of causal relations. Wall Street does not, by using a large amount of bank-credit, take just that much away from ordinary business. Rather, it increases the amount available for ordinary business! Wall Street, and the other financial and speculative centres, supply the liquidity for bank assets, and so make possible loans on non-liquid paper. Banks do not need to have all their assets liquid. If they did, American banks would have long since gone under! The foregoing discussion of loans to farmers, and manufacturers and even merchants should have made that clear. But banks do need a substantial margin of liquidity, to protect the rest. They get it from stock exchange collateral loans, and from ownership of listed and easily marketable bonds, primarily. They get part of it from true commercial paper. Thus, the director of a country bank in Iowa told the writer that banks in his section—where banks owned in large measure by farmers, and dealing largely with farmers, are very numerous and important—make a regular practice of buying, through brokers, a considerable amount of notes of outside merchants. They do this to protect themselves. Their other loans, to farmers, while good, are slow. If pressed themselves, they cannot press their depositors. These notes bought through note-brokers, however, are impersonal. They can refuse to renew them. They can sell them again. They thus buttress the rest of their assets. They can thus lend more, rather than less, to local customers. They can safely get along with much smaller cash reserves. Similarly with the practice of country banks of sending a large part of their cash to Wall Street banks to be lent on call, for which the country banks get, say, 2% from the Wall Street banks. Their country customers would pay 6% or more for that money in some cases, but the banks dare not tie up more of their assets in non-liquid local paper. They lend more, rather than less, at home, because they send part away. Wall Street is not "draining our commerce of its life blood"![541] Wall Street is rather preventing that life blood from coagulating!
A second important practical conclusion relates to the provision in the Federal Reserve Act which forbids Federal Reserve Banks to rediscount stock exchange paper. This provision was intended to keep funds from being diverted from commerce to stock speculation, and doubtless met the approval of many very good students of the subject. If the foregoing be true, however, that provision is a mistake. It is a mistake, first, because it will lessen, rather than increase, the power of the Reserve Banks to provide relief to commerce through aiding in making bank assets liquid via the stock market. It will limit the liquid assets of the Federal Reserve Banks in too great a degree to gold. It is a mistake, in the second place, because it prevents the Reserve Banks, particularly in New York and Boston, from making satisfactory profits—which is one important purpose of a bank! Even more important, however, is the third objection: it prevents, in large degree, the Federal Reserve Banks from being effective weapons against the "Money Trust." How far we have a "Money Trust" need not be here argued. The Pujo Committee, relying in considerable degree on admissions of prominent financiers that "concentration had gone far enough," and on the inability of Mr. Baker to find more than one issue of securities of over $10,000,000 within ten years, without the coöperation or participation of one of the members of a small group, concluded that we have a "Money Trust" in the sense that there is "an established and well-defined identity and community of interests between a few leaders of finance ... which has resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men."[542] How far this conclusion is justified is, of course, a matter that would require elaborate discussion. There seems to be evidence that there is, since the death of the elder Morgan, a decided loosening of ties. One feels the need, moreover, of discounting very considerably many of the conclusions of the Pujo Committee. The present writer feels that the case has been made, however, that there has been, and probably continues, a much greater concentration of such control than is desirable. Whether or not there is at present such a "Money Trust," it seems pretty clear that temporary, if not permanent, alignments, may give effective monopoly control when the issue of very big blocks of securities is involved. For present purposes, however, it is enough to note that if there is, or should come to be, a "Money Trust," it is a trust concerned with financing industry, through handling security issues, and not a trust in the granting of ordinary commercial credit.[543] If, therefore, the Federal Reserve Banks are to compete with it, and break its monopoly, they must do it by entering the market with funds for the financing of corporate industry. Power to rediscount commercial paper seems a feeble and hardly relevant weapon against a combination concerned with purchasing securities, and making collateral loans! No doubt, this power is worth something. If an independent investment banker wishes to compete with a "Money Trust" in financing a new enterprise, he can go to his commercial banker, and offer collateral security for a loan; if the commercial banker wishes to aid him, but is short of lending power, he may, if he has plenty of commercial paper available for rediscount, rediscount it with the Federal Reserve Bank, and so get the additional funds. But a New York bank, or trust company, with the bulk of its assets in stock exchange investments, may well not have enough commercial paper eligible for rediscount, and the Federal Reserve Bank could help very much more effectively if it could take collateral loans directly. A fourth, and even more important objection to the restriction on stock exchange collateral loans for Federal Reserve Banks relates to the power of these banks to aid in a crisis. Crises first hit the stock market. Financial panics are most acute there. The need for immediate and drastic relief is greatest there. If stock exchange loans lose their liquidity, what of the rest of bank loans? Power to lend on stock exchange collateral, in the hands of the Federal Reserve Banks, may well prove, in crises, an essential, if we wish to make our system definitely "panic proof."[544]
And now for a vital theoretical conclusion from this lengthy analysis of bank loans. For the quantity theory, and the "equation of exchange," all exchanges stand on a par. If one exchange takes place, that lessens the money and credit available for another exchange. The more exchanges there are, the less money and credit there are per exchange, and the lower prices must be, as a consequence. Nothing could be more false. Exchanges are not on a par.[545] Some classes of exchanges increase, rather than decrease the funds available for handling others. The activity of the speculative markets, making loans fluid, enormously increases the lending power of the banks for all purposes. Exchanges of securities, especially, instead of lowering prices, make it easier for prices to rise.[546] The years of extraordinary stock sales have always been "bull" years. There have been big "bear" days,[547] but never big bear years, in the record of New York Stock Exchange share sales. The selling and reselling of speculative goods of securities, and of notes and bills are especially important as making it easier for banks to expand loans. To list all manner of items, as Professor Fisher does,[548] "real estate, commodities, stocks, bonds, mortgages, private notes, time bills of exchange, rented real estate, rented commodities, hired workers," and count them all as "actual sales," all part of the "goods"[549] which make up the "volume of trade," is to put the theory utterly beyond the pale. Seasonal calls on an inelastic money supply for actual cash to move crops and pay agricultural wages may make a real difference in the value of money; scarcity of money of the right denominations for retail trade may give an agio to such money,[550] but the money and credit used by speculators, bill brokers, dealers in foreign exchange, investment bankers, etc., increases, rather than decreases, the funds available for ordinary industry and commerce.
I have made clear the distinction between the direct and indirect financing of industry by banks. Great banks in Continental Europe often buy the stocks of new corporations, hold them permanently, put bank officers on the boards of directors, and supervise closely the operations of the companies. In America, while officers of commercial[551] banks often are members of boards of directors of the companies which borrow heavily from the banks, the practice is to make short-time loans to such companies (in form, if not in fact), and to lend on their securities, rather than to buy them. Our banks own securities in enormous amount, but they are chiefly seasoned bonds, rather than stocks of new or even well-proved, enterprises.
It is commonly supposed, too, that collateral loans are chiefly or almost wholly made to speculators, who buy securities in the expectation of holding them only till investors take them off their hands, and that investors buy them, not with bank-credit derived from loans, but with money or bank-credit which they accumulate by saving out of current income. It is particularly true of the higher grade securities, which savings banks and insurance companies can buy, that this is the case. The bank-credit thus serves for temporary, rather than for permanent financing, to the extent that this is true. I think, however, that the extent to which bank-credit serves for permanently financing industry is underrated. A good many investors have learned that the short-time money-rates are, on the long time average, lower than the yield on long-time securities.[552] They have learned, too, that high-yield securities—securities high in yield as compared with the long-time average of money-rates—can be obtained which can safely be carried on margins of thirty, forty and fifty points, without danger that even such catastrophes as the slump in security prices at the outbreak of the War will wipe the margins out. The old distinction between investors and speculators, the former those who buy for the yield, and the latter those who buy for an anticipated rise in capital value, no longer corresponds to the distinction between those who buy outright and those who buy on a margin. The investor, buying a 6 or 7% preferred stock, carrying it on a forty point margin, with money from his bank or broker at 4 or 5%, is making 6 or 7% on his own forty dollars, and is making the difference between 6 or 7% and 4 or 5% on the sixty dollars lent him by his banker or broker. He substantially increases his yield thereby, and his risks, if he chooses his stocks carefully, and scatters them among a number of issues, are not great. For the banker or broker, such a loan is perfectly satisfactory. The margin of security is wider than that demanded on more speculative securities. Such a borrower will receive consideration when more speculative loans are being called, or not renewed. The investor of this type is, in effect, engaging in a form of banking business. He is lending to the corporation funds which he has borrowed from others; he has put up his own capital for the same purpose that the bank uses its capital—to supply a margin of safety to those who have taken his short-term promises to pay. Like the bank, too, he converts rights to payments at a later date into rights to payment at an earlier date. He is one of the links in the chain whereby the wealth of low saleability employed in industry becomes distilled and refined till it enters the money market. His profits come in the difference in the yield as between more saleable and less saleable forms of rights.
The extent of this practice cannot be stated, so far as any data to which the present writer has access are concerned. The writer has met the practice in a good many cases. One brokerage house, with whose operations the writer has considerable acquaintance, makes a practice of advising its more conservative customers to do this. A good many brokerage houses sell investment securities on the "instalment plan," which often means, in practice, that the initial margin put up by the investor is his only payment, and that the security is gradually paid for by letting the yield increase the margin. During the extremely easy money of the present War period, occasional reference has been made in the financial papers to the practice of buying even the highest grade bonds on this basis—the yield of the bonds being very substantially higher than the money-rates, giving a comfortable profit to those who hold the bonds on a margin.
That the practice is not wider spread is due primarily, probably, to the temperamental qualities required. The investor, proper, is commonly a very conservative person, who has an unreasoning distrust of speculation, and to whom the word, "margin," necessarily suggests speculation. That buying a stock on a margin is the same sort of thing as buying the equity in a mortgaged farm, does not occur to him. On the other hand, the man who knows the market well enough to be willing to deal on margins, frequently is not content with the slow process of accumulation which comes from annual yields, and prefers to take larger chances in speculation on capital values. But there is an intermediate class, who buy investment securities, with narrow range of fluctuation in capital values, for the sake of the yield, and who buy them on margins, margins ample to enable them to sleep at night, and to neglect the daily market reports. I think that there are indications that this class is growing larger, and more important. Doubtless much more important than individual "bankers" of this sort, however, is the enormous number of houses dealing in securities, "wholesalers" and "retailers," who find profit on their "wares" even while on their "shelves," through the differential between the yield and the charge made by commercial banks on collateral loans. A very large percentage of collateral loans is made to institutions of this type. As this practice becomes more important, the result must be to widen the money market, to increase the proportion of banking capital that goes permanently into financing industry, and to reduce the difference in yield between short-time paper and long-time securities—in other words, to bring the "money-rates" closer and closer to the long-time interest rates.
This would have seemed very strange and weird to Adam Smith. It means, in effect, that the bulk of our banking credit is, directly or indirectly, financing our industry rather than our commerce. Adam Smith thought that a bank could safely lend to its customers only so much as they would otherwise keep by them in the form of money. Perhaps this notion, as growing out of some speculations regarding the general theory of money, should not be taken as the statement of Smith's practical attitude on the matter, but that practical attitude, as clearly expressed in the paragraph[553] following, is that a bank can afford to lend only for mercantile operations that are carried through in a very moderate time, that the bank can afford to supply only the minor part of the circulating capital, and no part of the fixed capital, of a merchant, or manufacturer, no part of his forge and smelting house, etc. Such loans lack the liquidity which the bank must insist upon. Only those persons who have withdrawn from active business, and are content with the income upon their capital, can afford to lend for such purposes. The theory is sound, on the basis of the facts as Smith knew them. But modern corporate organization and modern stock markets have changed all that. Anything that is highly saleable can come into the money market, and the modern corporation organization of business, coupled with organized stock exchanges and a large and active body of speculators, has made the forge and the smelting house as saleable as the finished product.
This is not to accept Schumpeter's doctrine,[554] so far as the United States are concerned, that it is primarily the bankers, the manufacturers of bank-credit, who make the decisions that turn industry from old to new lines. They do not, on the whole. In Continental Europe, particularly Germany, they do to a much greater extent. Criticism has been made of our American commercial bankers, as contrasted with German bankers, that the former are parasites, who insist on sure things, and refuse to take chances with other business men in the development of industry. To the present writer, our banking system seems to be rather a more developed system than that of Germany, in that the "division of labor" has gone further with us, and risk-bearing and the manufacturing of bank-credit have been more sharply differentiated. We have bankers enough who are "risk-bearers." But they are, on the whole, "private bankers," "investment bankers," and the like, who do not manufacture a great deal of deposit credit, but rather borrow heavily from the commercial banks, which are the great manufacturers of bank-credit. Under our system, the decisions which divert industry from old to new lines are more democratically made, by speculators and investors under the leadership of private bankers, and sometimes without that leadership. These constitute the important intermediary which transforms stock exchange securities into the basis of bank-loans. The commercial banker buys, in general, not the stocks, but the note of the private banker, broker, speculator, or investor, with the stocks as collateral. If investment bankers, speculators and investors decide to support old ways of doing things, the banks lend on the securities of the old kinds of businesses; if investment bankers, speculators and investors turn to new things, the commercial banks follow suit. Commercial banks can and do discourage certain types of enterprises by refusing loans with their securities as collateral, or by requiring very heavy margins with such loans, but even these may be developed, and are with us on a large scale developed, on banking credit, advanced by the speculators and private bankers who borrowed it from the commercial banks with other securities as collateral. The commercial banks of the United States may to a very considerable degree check dynamic tendencies, but in general, they do not lead and direct them. Bank-credit, directed by others than commercial bankers, does, however, enormously facilitate both the starting of new enterprises and social readjustment to them.
How far can the total wealth of the country, agricultural as well as industrial, be brought into the circle of the money market? The full answer to the question would go far beyond the limits of this book. If agriculture can be brought under the control of large corporations, there is little reason for supposing that it, too, might not come in. There are some peculiarities of agriculture, special dangers of drought and flood, dangers of over-production and low prices, wide seasonal fluctuations in conditions, which make it hard to standardize in any case. But mining and even the manufacturing of such things as primary steel products have wide variations in prosperity too. So long, however, as agriculture remains a matter of families on a homestead—and for social and political reasons, we may hope that this will always be the case—it is difficult to bring it in. Bonds of agricultural associations or of agricultural banks have had limited sale on the bourses of Europe. The present writer, for example, found it impossible to find in four great libraries in New York and Boston any quotation of the bonds of the Bayerische Landwirtschaftsbank. Apparently, in general, such securities have not high saleability. While this remains true, agriculture may expect to remain under a handicap of higher interest rates than industry and commerce.