Readings in Money and Banking Part 72

BANKING THE MOST LOGICAL OF TRUSTS

A bank in New York City gave its employes a Christmas present equal to half their annual salary. The bank had a.s.sets of $100,000,000. A fine example, you say, to other great business concerns! But the bank had only fifty employes. In the entire country there are probably not more than 100,000 persons engaged in banking, either directly or indirectly.

The banker has, relatively speaking, no human factor to consider. And that factor with a concern like the United States Steel Corporation or the Pennsylvania Railroad is mammoth, almost baffling. The banker deals not in the production or distribution of wealth itself (in both of which much labor is needed), but solely in the paper representatives of wealth, money, and credit. Thus he can apply far more directly than the manufacturer or railroad manager the economies and efficiencies of Big Business.

Banking--the business of dealing in money and credit--is the most logical of trusts. And in practice it has justified the theory. Where banks have become larger they have become stronger, where co-operation and concentration have gone far, there safety and effectiveness have reached a high pitch.... Banking is the one central business of all--it is the business of businesses. So if it has become more efficient as the trust idea, or at least the principle of concentration, has gained sway, how can we have too much concentration and who is there to complain?...

If the bankers have, faithfully and well, handled the trust of extending credit to the limit of their ability, yet when the president of the second bank in size in the country acknowledges himself to be one of about a dozen men in whose hands the power of extending credit is, in the last a.n.a.lysis, concentrated--then it is high time, seriously and fearlessly, to consider the subject....

Three main factors are in the main responsible for the concentration of the control of credit and they are the growth of big banks, the growth of big industries, and the financial laws of the country....

NO LACK OF BANKING FACILITIES

However great the concentration of money power in this country, it cannot truthfully be said that banking facilities are not also increasing. Figures taken from the reports of the National Monetary Commission and other official sources show that the number of banks is mounting up faster than either wealth or population....

WHERE THE MONEY HAS GONE

When one first realises the extent of this country's banking resources he is properly astonished. But how evenly are these resources distributed? It is commonly known that banking facilities in the Southern and Western sections of the country are small indeed as compared with the New England, Eastern, Central, and Pacific Coast sections, where large cities abound. To ill.u.s.trate, in 1909, when the total banking power was close to twenty-one billions, more than half was represented by forty-seven cities, and close to one-quarter was held by the two hundred banks in New York and Chicago. In other words about 1 per cent. of the country's banks held close to one-quarter of the country's banking power.

Now it is a well-known fact that an individual or corporation with large resources and large business exerts an influence in his particular field far in excess of his actual mathematical percentage of the total resources or business. Thus the dominating position of the big banks is even greater than mere figures indicate. But there is still another fact which centralises and cements their power. The only banks which are really large are in a few cities, and the larger they are, the more they tend to the very greatest centres of population. Thus toward the end of 1911, there were 183 banking inst.i.tutions with deposits of $10,000,000 or more, of which sixty-two were in New York City. There were thirty-six inst.i.tutions with deposits of $25,000,000 or more. Sixteen of these were in New York City and four in Chicago. There were ten with deposits of $75,000,000 or more, and of these, seven were in New York and two in Chicago. Of the ten largest trust companies six were in New York, three in Chicago, and one in Boston.

These great banks and trust companies are of very recent growth. Twenty years ago the deposits of our largest bank were one-twentieth of what they are to-day. At the first inauguration of President McKinley, which was really not so far back as the Dark Ages, there was no bank in New York with more than $30,000,000 of deposits. Now there are six banks each with more than $100,000,000 of deposits. A trust company in New York City, which had deposits of $20,000,000 five years ago, now has deposits of $166,000,000 and its twenty-eight directors sit [1912] in boards of other banking inst.i.tutions with resources of $1,250,000,000.

When it comes to actual cash we find the position of the New York and Chicago banks even more dominant....

CONSOLIDATION--A STEADY PROCESS

Despite the disproportionate size of New York and Chicago banks their number is steadily decreasing. This is because the process of consolidation proceeds just as steadily. In 1853 there were fifty-three banks in the New York Clearing House a.s.sociation, and in 1911 there were fifty, although in the meantime the amount of business had increased twenty times. There are now less than 130 banks in New York, or ten less than ten years ago, although in that time cash holdings have doubled and deposits have increased a third. In ten years no less than 103 banks have gone out of existence, generally through absorption into larger inst.i.tutions.... In Chicago the same process of consolidation has gone on. One Chicago trust company has absorbed six others in eight years.

New York and Chicago are by no means the only cities in which the obvious tendency is to have fewer but larger banks. Look about at random. Akron, Ohio, where the rubber industry has recently become of more than local importance, has felt the necessity of banks large enough to carry on its trade, and consolidation has resulted. In Detroit, where the automobile trade has set in motion a great industrial development, the Old Detroit National has absorbed the American Exchange National. In Seattle, Nashville, Wilmington, Portland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Louisville there have been many recent mergers and absorptions. In Cincinnati one of the largest inst.i.tutions in the Ohio Valley has been formed by the absorption of the Merchants' National by the First National. As for Boston the desire of her capitalists to make New England more powerful in the business life of the country has led to the recent absorption of the City Trust Company by the Old Colony and the steady growth of three financial inst.i.tutions, the Shawmut National Bank, the First National Bank, and the Old Colony Trust Company, these three far exceeding all others in size....

HOW THE LAW HAS FOSTERED AFFILIATION

... One great cause of the concentration of banking and financial power into a few hands has been the consolidation of banking resources into a few great units and the friendly affiliations of these units. But these units have not grown big merely because their managers or owners willed it so. The banking and currency laws of the country have forced money into a few centres. The banks of New York City employ--mainly in financial or stock market loans--about $600,000,000 which belongs to banks in other parts of the country. Naturally this concentration of money in a few banks "places these banks in a position to control the issuing or granting of credit"--to use the exact words of the president of one of them--"thereby placing the money power in the hands of a comparatively small number of men."

But this gravitation of money to New York is because the money is idle and is hunting a job, and not because of any process of usurpation, manipulation, or combination. It naturally arises under and by virtue of the reserve requirements of our National Banking Act.... The bulk of idle country bank cash which finds employment in New York comes here because of the existing reserve system, and there are several great banks in both New York and Chicago which have few customers other than the thousands of country banks whose "correspondents" they are.

THE CORPORATION AND THE BANK

Thus banking and financial power is concentrated in a few hands not only by the growth of great banks and by the laws of the country, but also by the legitimate business practices which have grown up under these laws.

But the ma.s.sing of this power in a few vast, centralised units has been a development of the last ten or fifteen years only. That is, it has been coincident with the development of trusts and combinations. Big Business and Big Banking have gone hand in hand. Each has made the other possible. By law a bank cannot loan more than one-tenth of its capital and surplus to any one customer. But the customers have grown into behemoths. How then could the banks fail to grow?

Before trusts existed and before small railroads were united into large systems the few banking houses of magnitude which existed in Wall Street had engaged in merchant banking, for the industries and railroads had not been large enough to attract their attention. These small industries and railroads were controlled by their owners, and their capital requirements were supplied largely in the localities in which they were situated. But as railroads and industries were consolidated it was found necessary to apply to the larger New York banking firms to supply the funds. These bankers had European connections as well as close affiliations with the big national banks and life insurance companies, and were able not only to furnish the needed capital but also undertook to market the securities of the newly formed combinations.

Thus a few banking houses, of which J. P. Morgan & Co. is the chief example, became in a way responsible for these new creations and naturally a.s.sumed charge not only of their finances, but to some extent of their other affairs. Thus the headquarters of the trusts and railroads gradually moved to New York. In the treasuries of these companies were vast sums of money to be banked, and it was inevitable that most of it should be placed in New York banks. The average daily balance of the United States Steel Corporation is about $75,000,000 and the American Tobacco Company has perhaps $20,000,000. There is also the Standard Oil Company, whose balance is perhaps as large.

These few financial groups, J. P. Morgan & Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and the capitalists identified with the National City Bank and the First National Bank, along with a few others, are primarily in the business of selling securities and loaning money upon them. In fact they may be described as the great security issuing houses. Such influence as their members or directors may exert over railroad and other corporations is largely due to their ability to dispose of securities and to give these securities the stamp of soundness and conservatism. Here it may be added that men like J. P. Morgan would not be directors in so many corporations if their advice and a.s.sistance were not eagerly sought.

In the small village a small group of men own the bank, the coal yard, the ice-plant, the trolley line, the gas plant, and the little factories. Every day of the year these men, in their different capacities, have to trade with themselves in the purchase of supplies, etc., for their different companies, one from another. No one thinks of accusing them of double dealing, and yet the situation differs not a whit from the vast system of interlocking bank and corporate directors in New York except in degree and in fact, which, however, is vital, that the New York system affects the whole commonwealth whereas the business convolutions of Deacon Jones of Jones' Corners do not.

Now it must not be supposed that bankers such as Mr. Morgan and his partners are usually large owners in the companies they influence or even control. Often they do not own 15 per cent. of the stock of the banks they dominate. Often they become directors with but a few shares of qualifying stock. Still more often their influence is exerted merely as financial advisers. Often they nominate the president of a railroad or manufacturing company as Morgan & Co. nominated the president of the Atlas Portland Cement Company. Often the bankers take no part in the direction of companies until these companies have shown incapacity or have had for any reason, business or governmental, to be reorganised, either in form or management. Recent cases which come under one or the other of these heads are the Wabash Railroad, the United States Motors Co., the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, the International Paper Company, the American Tobacco Company and the American Sugar Refining Company.

HARMONY THE WATCHWORD

There is little evidence to show any actual agreement or even arrangement among the great financial groups. Through interlocking directors and the wide following of smaller firms which each of the big groups has, the whole big banking situation in New York is closely knit together. There is a carefully fostered community of interest even among hostile groups, each group having a director or two, like a financial amba.s.sador, in the other banks.[229] In the past there has been keen rivalry. Historically the Morgan and First National Bank groups have long been close, and two members of the Morgan firm were taken from the First National Bank. At one time these two groups bitterly fought the other two powerful groups--the Kuhn, Loeb-National City Bank interests.

But in recent years harmony has prevailed....

It must be remembered that the four banking groups are now managed for the most part by young men. These young men are more accustomed to the ways of conciliation than were the late E. H. Harriman, and John D.

Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. The younger men trouble themselves little with the former conflicts of Morgan, Hill, Rockefeller, Schiff, Stillman, Harriman, and Ryan. They have forgotten even the accusations and charges which the life insurance scandals made public. Their aim is more impersonal--it is to "develop business," and the surest way to do that is by working harmoniously together.

MONEY POWER NOT DISTINCTLY AMERICAN

Striking as the concentration of banking, money, and financial power seems, it is no greater here than abroad, perhaps not so great. In London there are banks with fifty millions of capital, or twice as much as our one largest bank, and deposits of nearly four hundred millions of dollars, or twice as much as our largest bank. Even Canada, with a population less than one-tenth of ours, has a bank as great as our greatest. Relatively its big banks are bigger than ours. Concentration in Canada has gone much farther than here. Six banks in the Dominion hold half its entire banking resources. The autocratic power wielded by the score of great Canadian banks would start a revolution in this country. Germany and France long ago went through the process of bank consolidation.

WHY, THEN, DO WE HEAR FEW COMPLAINTS FROM ABROAD?

Here is a problem to be faced with intellectual honesty. Money power may be a bad thing, but let us not be so dishonest as to declare it a new thing. The New York Clearing House a.s.sociation may wield power too autocratic, but let it not be overlooked that a similar organisation in London, with only one-third as many members, has long exercised as great power without raising any hue and cry of a Money Trust. Also consider Germany. If you have the time and courage to undertake such a task, go through the ponderous volume issued by the National Monetary Commission telling of the actual results of the great bank system in that country.

It is a weary task reading the long-winded testimony of Herr Professor Doctor Governor this and that, but it is worth the labour.

We are told that great banks are more amenable to public opinion than smaller scattered inst.i.tutions, that the Government is more ably a.s.sisted in its financial operations, that fewer reckless loans are made. Quicker prognostication of crises, whether on the Bourse or in commerce and industry, quicker adoption of preventive measures thereby lessening the effects of crises, are other services rendered by concentrated banking in Germany....

In 1907, when there was far less both of co-operation and concentration among the banks of this country than there is to-day, each bank standing weakly isolated and alone, frantically grasped all the cash it could muster. When the panic storm broke banks struggled to call in loans and line their vaults with cash. Business was crippled; industry was squeezed dry of its lifeblood. Last year when Germany was threatened with both war and panic, trouble was averted by the German "Money Trust," which loaned more than $200,000,000. It takes no expert knowledge of finance or banking to perceive that a few great, strong banks, or many smaller ones (provided they are welded closely together) can meet a storm more calmly than scattered, unconnected inst.i.tutions.

WHERE IS THE VITAL DIFFERENCE?

If concentration is a good thing, how can there be too much of it? Here is the answer. Concentrated power without responsibility may be the worst possible thing. The other great financial nations have money trusts ... too, but each is capped by a vast central bank, more or less a government inst.i.tution, and from the necessity of the case operated not only with a view to the general welfare but more or less openly and publicly.... The American "Money Trust" is strictly private, responsible to no one. It may act philanthropically if it chooses, but it is governed by nothing but choice. The money kings can, if they wish, exact any price.

R. H. Thomas, former president of the New York Stock Exchange, told the Pujo committee how Wall Street had finally to turn to one man, J. P.

Morgan, in the panic of 1907, to save it from complete disaster. He did not know where the relief came from, in what form, nor with what conditions. It just came. Since at that time the entire country was dependent upon Wall Street because its surplus money was there, there is no escaping the fact that the whole financial situation of the country was at the mercy of one man. A 200 per cent. rate for loans would be inconceivable in one of the European financial centres because the central banks of Europe are the guarantors of the stability of the money market. The central banks of Europe depend upon no man, selfish or altruistic. They are the public financial regulators of the whole nation.

Has the Money Power been used to crush and squeeze?... Suppose that it has not been so used. Nevertheless, its control is in the hands of a few men. Even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, they are necessarily most interested in the great undertakings in which we have seen them to be engaged. By reason of these limitations they must check and limit, if they do not destroy, genuine economic freedom and compet.i.tion.... A handful of men, responsible to no one but themselves and G.o.d, have become masters of the lifeblood of commerce and industry. That this power has been more rapidly concentrated into their hands than the people have supposed is the unavoidable conclusion of this article.

From private persons, acting in private, and dominated in the main by private motives there cannot be expected the wisest and broadest direction of the flow of money--the lifeblood of business. These men have not asked for this power. They know it is too great for them. On the whole they have behaved with singular restraint. But only a fool would suppose that the best system for financing the small farmer in Florida or the small tin can manufacturer in Oregon is to turn over the entire money power of the nation to J. P. Morgan and a few other private persons. How under such a system could the great trusts fail to thrive at the expense of the small man?

THE BANKS AND RAILWAY FINANCE

[230]Close relations.h.i.+ps of railways with banks or other credit inst.i.tutions have grown up naturally through the need for new capital constantly imposed upon an expanding railway system. Some railways have been fortunate enough to possess a relatively stable body of stockholders whose confidence in the management is so complete that new funds can be raised by direct appeal of the management to the stockholders without the intervention of outside financial interests.

But these cases have thus far been rare in American railway finance.