A “Quasi” Bank Run in Motion

A “Quasi” Bank Run in Motion
Profile photo of David Howden

HSBC has apparently stopped letting customers withdraw more than £5,000 from their British bank accounts unless depositors can provide evidence of “why they wanted it.” According to the BBC:

Stephen Cotton went to his local HSBC branch this month to withdraw £7,000 from his instant access savings account to pay back a loan from his mother.

A year before, he had withdrawn a larger sum in cash from HSBC without a problem.

But this time it was different, as he told Money Box: “When we presented them with the withdrawal slip, they declined to give us the money because we could not provide them with a satisfactory explanation for what the money was for. They wanted a letter from the person involved.”

Mr Cotton says the staff refused to tell him how much he could have: “So I wrote out a few slips. I said, ‘Can I have £5,000?’ They said no. I said, ‘Can I have £4,000?’ They said no. And then I wrote one out for £3,000 and they said, ‘OK, we’ll give you that.’ ”

He asked if he could return later that day to withdraw another £3,000, but he was told he could not do the same thing twice in one day.

When a bank holds fractional reserves, there will come a time when not enough cash is in the vaults to honour the redemption requests of depositors. These instances give rise to the common bank run, though historically banks have tried to avoid this fate through “ingenious” clauses on their deposits.

Option clauses, for example, were widely used in the Scottish “free banking” era as a way to get depositors to stop asking for their money. A bank could elect not to hand over a deposit when asked, but would at least remunerate the customer for this inconvenience. At the time this was widely seen as problematic, as it drove a wedge between the motivations of depositors (have their cash safe and available) and bankers (use depositor funds and remain solvent).

Today’s banks don’t even do this – they just change the rules of the game half-way through. Depositors think they have full access to their money when they make a deposit. Not only that, they think they are the owners of their money. Wrong on both counts. According to the law of most lands, when you deposit your money in a bank it becomes property of the bank and it can use it when it wants. If you need cash in a hurry, as may have well been the case with Mr. Cotton in the story above, it is tough luck. Your bank gets to dictate when you get your money back.

I explained last week why it is that bank runs generate so much ill will towards bankers – depositors don’t think, nor do they want, to give bankers control over their money. HSBC’s actions aimed at limiting withdrawals is not too surprising given the history of fractional-reserve banking.  It signals that the bank has insufficient money available to readily honour all the redemption requests of its depositors, or stated another way, there is a run (or “quasi” run in this case) going on. I’d bet my bank deposit account that it won’t be the last one we ever read about.

  •العاب-سيارات/ العاب السيارات

    Love it

  • DismalEconomist

    Given that HSBC was indicted for major money laundering infractions and other fraudulent activity last year my interpretation of this story is different. After being hit with some very sizable fines, the bank is making an effort to limit any potential future liability it might face if it unwittingly hands over cash that ends up being used to finance criminal activity. Large cash withdrawals (and large cash deposits) tend to appear suspicious and are subject to more scrutinizing international anti-money laundering laws since cash in large denominations is used to finance illicit activity more often than traceable wire transfers would be. Unfortunately, to guard against this risk some regular everyday customers are inconvenienced.

Profile photo of David Howden

David Howden is Chair of the Department of Business and Economics, and professor of economics at St. Louis University, at its Madrid Campus, Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, and winner of the Mises Institute's Douglas E. French Prize. Send him mail.

More in Blog

My letter to the NY Times re: Typical Keynesian Whitewash

Patrick BarronAugust 14, 2018

My letter to the NY Times re: Typical Keynesian Whitewash

Patrick BarronAugust 14, 2018

Join Us at the Rothbard U 2018 Opening Reception

Mises CanadaJuly 10, 2018

Understanding Economic Theory Is Essential for Understanding the Benefits of Free Trade

Patrick BarronJune 23, 2018

China’s Currency Manipulation Does NOT Harm Its Trading Partners

Patrick BarronJune 19, 2018

Trumping to Serfdom

Doug FrenchJune 18, 2018

The market provides its own punishment for irrelevant discrimination

Patrick BarronMay 20, 2018

Unilateral Free Trade Would Benefit All UK Citizens

Patrick BarronMarch 21, 2018

The EU elite are ignorant of the true meaning and importance of “comparative advantage”

Patrick BarronMarch 15, 2018

Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada Inc.
2574 St. Clair Ave West
Unit 1 Suite #181
Toronto, ON M6N 1L8

Any opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the author and not necessarily held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License.

Copyright © 2015 Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada, Inc. All Rights Reserved.