INSIGHTFUL but metaphorical, the statement ‘depositors are the true owners of a bank’ captures the dynamic between banks and their depositors. The faith and confidence of depositors are crucial to a bank’s existence and operational stability, even when shareholders retain legal and financial ownership of the institution. Depositors are creditors — important but indirect stakeholders — as opposed to shareholders, who own stock and have the ability to vote. This thesis emphasises a basic, interconnected link in which a bank’s liquidity, reputation, and, eventually, solvency may all be directly impacted by depositor trust. Examining the significance of depositor confidence, the mechanics of bank runs, and particular real-world instances might help us comprehend why depositor influence is sometimes viewed as a type of ‘metaphorical ownership.’
Ìý
The traditional structure of bank ownership
IT IS necessary to first describe the conventional ownership structure of banks in order to comprehend the argument. Usually organised as businesses, banks are owned by shareholders who own stock. These shareholders have the right to vote, receive dividends, and get a portion of the bank’s earnings. They choose a board of directors, who act as fiduciaries in charge of managing the bank’s operations and defending the interests of shareholders. Senior management is chosen by this board and is in charge of overseeing the bank’s daily operations, strategy, and finances.
Depositors, on the other hand, are the bank’s clients and creditors, providing funds in the form of savings or time deposits. They are motivated by the promise of safety for their funds and, in many cases, the potential to earn modest interest. However, depositors do not participate in bank governance, nor do they benefit directly from the bank’s profitability. Instead, their relationship with the bank is based on an implicit trust that the institution will protect and return their funds upon request. This trust underpins a stable banking environment, and any disruption to this trust can have cascading effects on a bank’s stability.
Ìý
Metaphorical ownership of depositors
The notion that depositors are a bank’s ‘true owners’ highlights the indirect control they have on the stability and ongoing operations of the institution. Even though depositors don’t have the legal authority to own or make decisions, their combined actions, especially in difficult financial circumstances, might affect the bank’s survival. This effect stems from two basic elements:
Liquidity dependency: Under the fractional-reserve banking model, banks invest or lend out the majority of their deposits while holding just a portion in reserve. Banks are essentially reliant on the steady flow of depositor cash under this paradigm. In the event that depositors lose faith and take their money all at once, the bank would soon run out of liquidity and be unable to satisfy withdrawal requests. This liquidity dependence makes depositor confidence central to a bank’s daily operations and long-term survival.
Psychology of trust and stability: Banks are seen as pillars of financial security, and their stability depends on the collective trust of depositors. A bank’s reputation and depositor trust are as crucial as its financial health because any perceived instability can lead to a swift loss of confidence, triggering a bank run. During such events, even financially sound banks can find themselves in crisis simply because they lack sufficient liquid assets to meet a surge in withdrawal requests.
Ìý
Real-life example
THE collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in March 2023 underscores the importance of depositor trust and how swiftly it can be eroded, leading to catastrophic outcomes for even large and seemingly stable institutions. The situation illustrates that while shareholders and management hold legal ownership, it is ultimately the depositors’ perception of the bank’s stability that can dictate its fate. This example aligns closely with the metaphorical ownership concept: without the trust and confidence of depositors, even well-capitalised banks can face rapid decline.
This is how it all started: Silicon Valley Bank’s announcement of significant losses due to the sale of long-term securities, along with plans to raise capital, caught depositors off guard. The bank’s communication regarding its financial health failed to reassure its clients, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty. According to reports, this lack of clarity led to heightened anxiety among depositors. In addition to this, as the Federal Reserve increased interest rates to combat inflation, the market value of Silicon Valley Bank’s long-term investments plummeted. This created a significant mismatch between the bank’s asset values and its liquidity needs. When depositors became aware of the potential for large losses, their confidence diminished rapidly, prompting many to withdraw funds simultaneously.
On account of these factors, there was a bank run, where depositors rushed to withdraw approximately $42 billion in just one day. This was a staggering amount considering the bank’s size, and it reflected a widespread loss of trust among its client base. Reports indicate that as news spread through social circles, fears intensified, prompting a frantic response from depositors. The swift withdrawal of funds forced the authorities to step in, and on March 10, 2023, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed the bank. This regulatory seizure marked a significant moment in US banking history, demonstrating how quickly depositor sentiment can dictate a bank’s fate, regardless of its underlying financial health.
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank serves as a stark reminder of the importance of depositor confidence in the banking sector. Even a well- capitalised institution can succumb to a loss of trust, leading to dire consequences.
Ìý
Depositor confidence and modern banking landscape
IN THE current banking environment, depositor trust is essential because it acts as a fulcrum that keeps the fragile structure of financial institutions together. This trust is based on the conviction that banks can protect savings and make money available when required. Even little changes in depositor mood might have big consequences in a setting where confidence is crucial.
The intricate relationship between depositor confidence and bank stability is further complicated by the rise of social media and instant communication. News, whether accurate or speculative, can spread rapidly, leading to a swift deterioration of trust.
Banks understand that keeping depositor trust is crucial for their success. To achieve this, they implement effective risk management strategies, share clear financial information, and communicate regularly with their depositors. During uncertain times, these practices help prevent a quick loss of trust that could lead to financial problems, such as a liquidity crisis.
Furthermore, depositor trust is not just important for certain institutions. All banks must be trusted in order for the banking system to remain stable; if one bank loses depositor faith, it may cause issues for the others. Because banks and regulators are intertwined, they must cooperate to preserve public confidence, particularly in lean economic times. In the end, maintaining depositor confidence is crucial to ensuring that funds flow freely throughout the banking system, which supports economic stability and prosperity.
Ìý
Beyond metaphor: A symbiotic relationship
DESPITE not having any formal ownership rights, depositors have a significant impact on a bank’s stability because of their vital role in its operations. This effect emphasises how banks and depositors are linked and depend on one another for their financial stability. While depositors depend on the bank to safeguard their assets and guarantee their liquidity, the bank depends on depositor money to function. Banks can prosper and run with confidence when this connection is properly handled and trust is upheld. On the other hand, as Silicon Valley Bank has shown, even the most robust financial organisation may fail if confidence is damaged.
However, the limitations of symbolic ownership are evident: although depositors have an impact on a bank’s destiny, they are neither involved in its governance nor get a portion of its revenues. Shareholders, who take on the risks and benefits of the bank’s operations, continue to have true ownership. Nevertheless, the metaphor highlights the significance of policies and procedures that safeguard and promote this special connection and highlights how vital depositor confidence is to a bank’s operations.
The ‘deposit-centric’ argument ultimately serves as a reminder of the fundamental vulnerability of banks and the significant, sometimes invisible role depositors play. Even in the absence of official ownership, the collective trust of depositors constitutes a type of silent governance, a power that banks cannot afford to overlook since it stems from a trust-based reliance rather than rights or shares.
Ìý
Md Salauddin is a banker.