[Back to Main Quantitative Balancing page]
GROK 3 refined answer (see the original at the bottom):
- Nationally Chartered Banks: Overseen by federal agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve, these banks fall outside state control.
- State-Chartered Banks: Regulated by state banking authorities (and the FDIC if insured), these institutions offer a limited but real avenue for state innovation.
- Federal Preemption: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) ensures federal banking laws override conflicting state laws. If QB alters money creation or banking operations in ways deemed inconsistent with federal standards (e.g., the Federal Reserve Act or FDIC rules), courts could invalidate it.
- Constitutional Limits: Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from issuing currency or bills of credit. Framing QB as a banking reform rather than a monetary system is critical to avoid this pitfall.
- Interstate Commerce: The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) could be invoked if QB disrupts interstate banking operations, especially for multi-state institutions.
- Pass QB Legislation: The state legislature enacts a law requiring state-chartered banks to:
- Segregate Deposits: Treat customer deposits as custodial funds held for the state treasury, not as bank assets available for lending.
- Recognize Seigniorage: Record profits from money creation (e.g., interest on loans minus deposit costs) as a liability payable to the state, treating it as a public resource.
- Enhance Reporting: Mandate detailed cash flow statements aligned with QB principles, possibly adopting standards like IFRS-IAS 7 or US-GAAP ASC 942-230-20.
- Scope: Apply QB only to state-chartered banks and exempt nationally chartered ones to minimize federal friction.
- Seek Approval: Engage the FDIC and Federal Reserve for concurrence, framing QB as a transparency initiative rather than a monetary overhaul. A pilot program could ease federal concerns.
- Exemptions: Request waivers for state-chartered banks to deviate from federal norms, citing state sovereignty over local commerce.
- State-Owned Banks: States like North Dakota, with the Bank of North Dakota (BND), could adopt QB internally first. The BND could segregate deposits and redirect seigniorage to the state treasury, serving as a proof of concept.
- Incentivize Private Adoption: Offer tax credits or regulatory relief to private state-chartered banks that opt into QB voluntarily.
- Avoid Currency Claims: Present QB as an accounting and accountability reform, not a new currency or money creation system, to dodge constitutional challenges.
- State Rights: Invoke the 10th Amendment, arguing that regulating state-chartered banks falls within reserved state powers, provided it doesn’t usurp federal currency authority.
- Pilot Phase: Launch QB with a small group of state-chartered banks or the state’s public bank. Assess impacts on liquidity, profitability, and depositor trust.
- Expansion: Scale QB to all state-chartered banks, refining rules based on pilot data.
- Sustainability: Establish a state oversight board to monitor compliance and adjust QB as needed.
- Collaborate with accounting bodies (e.g., AICPA) to develop QB-specific guidelines, ensuring compatibility with federal reporting (e.g., FASB standards) while meeting transparency goals.
- Launch a campaign emphasizing QB’s benefits: greater financial stability, public revenue from seigniorage, and protection of depositors’ funds.
- Multi-state banks might resist QB, relocating to avoid compliance. A state like California, with a large internal market, might weather this better than smaller states.
- Pros: QB could bolster state revenue (via seigniorage) and reduce systemic risk by limiting speculative lending.
- Cons: Banks might face reduced profitability, shrinking credit availability and potentially slowing economic growth.
- The banking lobby and federal regulators could oppose QB, requiring strong political backing—perhaps from populist or reform-minded coalitions.
Title: The North Dakota Quantitative Balancing Act of 2025
Introduced by: Senator T. Larson, Representative M. Olson
Date Introduced: March 1, 2025
(1) Transparent banking practices are vital to the economic security of North Dakota’s residents and businesses;
(2) The state has authority under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to regulate state-chartered financial institutions and the Bank of North Dakota;
(3) The Bank of North Dakota, as a public institution, provides a unique opportunity to model innovative banking reforms;
(4) Quantitative Balancing can protect depositors, stabilize the state’s economy, and generate resources for public benefit.
(1) Require state-chartered banks and the Bank of North Dakota to segregate customer deposits as custodial funds;
(2) Recognize seigniorage profits as a liability payable to the state treasury;
(3) Establish transparent reporting standards for cash flows and money creation activities.
(a) "State-chartered bank" means a financial institution chartered and regulated under North Dakota Century Code Title 6, excluding nationally chartered banks.
(b) "Bank of North Dakota" (BND) means the state-owned bank established under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 6-09.
(c) "Quantitative Balancing" (QB) means the system of banking practices requiring segregation of deposits, recognition of seigniorage liabilities, and transparent reporting as outlined herein.
(d) "Deposits" means funds placed with a state-chartered bank or the BND by customers, excluding equity or investment instruments.
(e) "Seigniorage" means the profit derived by a bank from the difference between interest earned on loans or investments and the cost of maintaining deposits.
(f) "State Treasury" means the North Dakota State Treasurer’s Office.
(1) Effective January 1, 2026, every state-chartered bank and the Bank of North Dakota shall segregate all customer deposits into a custodial account, distinct from operational or lending funds.
(2) Deposits in custodial accounts shall not be used for lending or investment unless explicitly authorized by the depositor in writing.
(3) Custodial accounts shall be held in trust for depositors, with the State Treasury designated as the secondary beneficiary in the event of bank insolvency.
(1) Each state-chartered bank and the BND shall calculate its quarterly seigniorage profit, defined as net interest income from loans and investments minus deposit maintenance costs.
(2) Sixty percent (60%) of the BND’s seigniorage profit and forty percent (40%) of private state-chartered banks’ seigniorage profit shall be recorded as a liability payable to the State Treasury, remitted annually on or before March 31 of the following year.
(3) The remaining seigniorage profit may be retained by the bank for operational purposes, subject to existing capital requirements.
(1) State-chartered banks and the BND shall submit quarterly reports to the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions, detailing:
(i) Total deposits in custodial accounts;
(ii) Seigniorage profits and liabilities;
(iii) Cash flow statements compliant with standards set by the Department.
(2) Reports shall be made publicly available on the Department’s website within 30 days of submission.
(1) The Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to implement this Act, including accounting standards aligned with US-GAAP ASC 942-230-20 or IFRS-IAS 7, as applicable.
(2) The DFI shall establish a Quantitative Balancing Oversight Committee, composed of five members—two from the BND, two from the private banking sector, and one appointed by the Governor—to monitor compliance and recommend adjustments.
(1) The BND shall implement QB principles by July 1, 2025, serving as a pilot to test the framework for 12 months.
(2) The DFI shall report findings from the BND pilot to the Legislative Assembly by September 1, 2026, with recommendations for statewide expansion.
(1) The DFI, in collaboration with the BND, shall consult with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve to ensure compliance with federal banking regulations.
(2) The DFI may request exemptions or waivers as necessary to facilitate QB adoption by state-chartered banks.
(1) Adopt QB principles as outlined in Section 4, setting a precedent for private state-chartered banks;
(2) Offer technical assistance and training to private banks transitioning to QB;
(3) Provide incentives, such as partnership loans or reduced fees, to encourage voluntary QB adoption by private institutions.
(b) Severability: If any provision of this Act is found invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
(c) Preemption Defense: This Act is enacted under the state’s reserved powers under North Dakota Century Code and shall not conflict with federal monetary authority as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
(b) Funds shall be allocated as follows:
(1) 50% to agricultural development and rural infrastructure;
(2) 30% to depositor protection and financial literacy programs;
(3) 20% to renewable energy projects.
(c) The State Treasurer shall submit an annual report on fund usage to the Legislative Assembly by January 15 of each year.
- Leveraging BND: The Bank of North Dakota is central to the rollout (Sections 5(b) and 6), using its public status to pilot QB and support private banks. This reflects North Dakota’s real-world advantage as the only U.S. state with a public bank.
- Adjusted Seigniorage Split: The BND pays a higher share (60%) to the treasury than private banks (40%), reflecting its public ownership and aligning with North Dakota’s history of using BND profits for state benefit.
- Rural Focus: Funding allocations (Section 8(b)) prioritize agriculture and rural needs, consistent with North Dakota’s economic profile.
- Existing Framework: References the North Dakota Century Code (e.g., Title 6, Chapter 6-09) to ground the bill in current law, enhancing legal feasibility.
- Timeline: The BND pilot starts earlier (July 2025) to capitalize on its readiness, with broader implementation delayed to 2026 for private banks.
Original answer: Yes, a single U.S. state could theoretically introduce Quantitative Balancing (QB) within its jurisdiction, but doing so would face significant legal, regulatory, and practical challenges due to the structure of the U.S. banking and monetary systems. The implementation of QB at the state level would require careful navigation of federal laws, coordination with federal regulators, and potentially innovative legislative strategies. Below is an analysis of how a single U.S. state could introduce QB, along with the challenges and steps involved.
1. Legal and Regulatory Framework
1.1 Federal vs. State Authority
The U.S. banking system is primarily governed at the federal level by institutions such as the Federal Reserve , the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) , and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) . States have limited authority over banking regulations, particularly for nationally chartered banks. However, states do regulate state-chartered banks and can impose additional requirements on financial institutions operating within their borders
1
.
• State-Chartered Banks : A state could mandate that state-chartered banks adopt QB principles. This would involve passing state legislation requiring these banks to segregate deposits, recognize seigniorage liabilities, and report cash flows in accordance with QB.
• Nationally Chartered Banks : For nationally chartered banks, the state would need to coordinate with federal regulators or seek exemptions under federal law.
1.2 Potential Legal Challenges
• Preemption Doctrine : Federal law generally preempts state laws that conflict with federal banking regulations. A state attempting to implement QB could face legal challenges if its reforms are seen as conflicting with federal monetary policy or banking laws.
• Constitutional Issues : The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate currency and coinage (Article I, Section 8). Any state attempt to redefine money creation or seigniorage could raise constitutional concerns.
2. Steps for Introducing QB at the State Level
Despite these challenges, a state could take the following steps to introduce QB:
2.1 Legislative Action
The state legislature could pass laws mandating QB principles for state-chartered banks. Key provisions might include:
• Segregation of Deposits : Require state-chartered banks to treat customer deposits as liabilities to the state treasury rather than as part of the bank's balance sheet.
• Seigniorage Recognition : Mandate that banks record seigniorage payments as explicit liabilities to the state treasury.
• Transparency Requirements : Require detailed reporting of money creation and cash flows in accordance with QB.
2.2 Coordination with Federal Regulators
To avoid conflicts with federal law, the state could:
• Seek Exemptions : Request exemptions from federal regulators for state-chartered banks to operate under QB principles.
• Pilot Programs : Propose pilot programs to test QB in collaboration with federal agencies like the Federal Reserve or OCC.
2.3 Public Banking Initiatives
States with public banking systems (e.g., North Dakota) could implement QB more easily, as these institutions are already under state control. The state could:
• Adopt QB for Public Banks : Implement QB principles in state-owned banks, using them as a model for private institutions.
• Encourage Private Adoption : Offer incentives for private banks to voluntarily adopt QB, such as tax breaks or reduced regulatory burdens.
2.4 Constitutional Defense
To address potential constitutional challenges, the state could frame QB as a transparency and accountability measure rather than an attempt to regulate currency. For example:
• Focus on Reporting : Emphasize that QB does not alter the creation of money but improves the accuracy of financial reporting.
• Cite State Sovereignty : Argue that states have the right to regulate the operations of businesses within their borders, including banks.
3. Practical Implementation
3.1 Transition Plan
Implementing QB would require a phased approach to minimize disruption:
1. Phase 1: Pilot Program
◦ Select a few state-chartered banks to test QB principles.
◦ Monitor the impact on financial stability, transparency, and depositor confidence.
2. Phase 2: Full Implementation
◦ Expand QB requirements to all state-chartered banks.
◦ Work with federal regulators to align QB with national standards.
3. Phase 3: Monitoring and Adjustment
◦ Establish a monitoring committee to oversee compliance and address issues.
3.2 Accounting and Reporting Standards
The state could develop QB-compliant accounting standards in collaboration with professional organizations like the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) . These standards could be aligned with international frameworks like IFRS-IAS 7.6 and US-GAAP ASC 942-230-20 [[File]].
3.3 Public Education and Outreach
To build support for QB, the state could launch public awareness campaigns highlighting the benefits of transparency, financial stability, and depositor protection.
4. Challenges and Considerations
4.1 Interstate Banking
Many banks operate across multiple states, complicating the implementation of QB at the state level. A bank operating in multiple jurisdictions might face conflicting requirements unless other states or the federal government adopt similar reforms.
4.2 Economic Impact
• Positive Effects : QB could enhance financial stability, reduce systemic risk, and provide the state with additional revenue through seigniorage.
• Negative Effects : Banks might relocate operations to states without QB requirements, leading to economic losses.
4.3 Political Feasibility
Introducing QB would require broad political support, which might be difficult to achieve given the influence of the banking industry and federal regulators.
5. Case Study: North Dakota
North Dakota’s state-owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) , provides a potential model for implementing QB. As a publicly owned institution, the BND operates under state control and could adopt QB principles relatively easily. The state could use the BND to demonstrate the benefits of QB before expanding the framework to private banks.
6. Conclusion
While a single U.S. state could theoretically introduce QB, doing so would require navigating complex legal and regulatory challenges. The most feasible approach would involve focusing on state-chartered banks, coordinating with federal regulators, and framing QB as a transparency and accountability measure. States with public banking systems, like North Dakota, might serve as ideal candidates for piloting QB reforms.
By taking a phased and collaborative approach, a state could potentially lead the way in transforming financial reporting and promoting greater transparency and stability in the banking system.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento