No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
In view of the approaching revision of the Bank Act in 1964, it may now be appropriate to re-examine contemporary opinion and practice concerning commercial bank capital. It is tempting to inquire whether there is an optimum ratio of capital to assets towards which commercial banks should aim. The traditional economic function of capital accounts has been to protect bank depositors against loss caused by depreciation of bank assets. “Bank capital is in effect a first line of deposit guarantee. Any supervisory standard for measuring capital adequacy should be expressed in terms of the function of bank capital. The function of bank capital is to protect the bank creditors, mostly depositors, against ultimate loss.”
Taking a literal view of this function, supervisory authorities in the United States came to apply a standard ratio of capital to deposits of 10 per cent; “there appears to be no scientific basis for this particular ratio. It is simply a good round decimal, easy to calculate at a glance.” Then, as the capital: asset ratio fell substantially with the increase of bank holdings of government securities, a capital: asset standard was suggested. Since losses result from asset depreciation, and bank assets do not all involve the same degree of risk, assets seemed a more relevant guide to capital requirements than deposits. Such an assets standard would not indicate a need for more capital until earning assets of some inherent risk were being acquired. Incidentally, if protection of assets were the accepted function of bank equity, it would only be that portion of capital funds in excess of fixed assets which would be relevant for the numerator.
1 Robinson, Roland J., “The Capital Deposit Ratio in Banking Supervision,” Journal of Political Economy, XLIX, 02, 1941, 41, 49.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., 41.
3 Frohmann, Louis, “The Adequacy of Bank Capital,” Journal of Finance, II, 10, 1947, 24.Google Scholar
4 See Robinson, Roland J., “A New Supervisory View of Bank Capital,” Journal of Finance, V, 03, 1950, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Frohmann, , “The Adequacy of Bank Capital,” 27.Google Scholar
6 Cramer, E. H. (Chief of the Division of Research and Statistics, F.D.I.C.), “The Philosophy of Bank Capitalization,” Journal of Finance, VI, 03, 1951, 62–5.Google Scholar
7 Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Decennial Revision of the Bank Act, 1954, 775.Google Scholar (The various revisions will hereafter be cited by title only.)
8 Ibid., 1954, 495. Mr. Elderkin, Inspector General of Banks.
9 Ibid., 1954, 487, 488. See also ibid., 1944, 30.
10 Ibid., 1954, 256. Mr. T. H. Atkinson.
11 Ibid., 1954, 476, 477, 478. Hon. Douglas Abbott, Minister of Finance.
12 H. of C., Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings, 1923, 406.Google Scholar (Hereafter these will be cited by title only.)
13 Correspondence with the author, 1958.
14 Minutes of Proceedings, 1934, 226.Google Scholar Sir Edmund Walter.
15 Decennial Revision of the Bank Act, 1944, 650.Google Scholar Mr. S. W. Wedd.
16 Ibid., 1954, 224. Mr. T. H. Atkinson, President, Canadian Bankers' Association.
17 Minutes of Proceedings, 1913, 172.Google Scholar Mr. H. C. McLeod.
18 Decennial Revision of the Bank Act, 1954, 234, 235.Google Scholar Mr. T. H. Atkinson.
19 Minutes of Proceedings, 1954, 252.Google Scholar Legal opinion signed by “Cowling, MacTavish, Osborne and Henderson.”
20 Ibid., 253.
21 Ibid., 171.
22 Bank Act, 2–3 Eliz. II, chap. 48, s. 63.
23 Minutes of Proceedings, 1954, 491.Google Scholar
24 Ibid., 1954, 487–9.