Norway: Implementing Quantitative Balancing (QB)

[Back to Main Quantitative Balance page]

Why?

Reasons : Norway has a highly regulated and stable banking system, making it an ideal candidate for testing new financial frameworks. The country also has a strong tradition of public ownership and social welfare, which aligns well with the redistributive aspects of QB. Moreover, Norway's sovereign wealth fund could benefit from the additional seigniorage revenue.

Potential Impact : QB could enhance transparency in the banking sector and provide additional resources for the government to invest in social programs, thereby strengthening financial stability and public trust.

Implementing Quantitative Balancing (QB) in Norway would require a series of regulatory and legal reforms to align with the principles outlined in the document. Below is a structured approach to suggest the necessary changes, focusing on the key areas that need adjustment:

1. Amendments to the Norwegian Financial Supervisory Act (Finanstilsynetloven)

The Norwegian Financial Supervisory Act governs the regulation and supervision of financial institutions. To implement QB, the following changes should be considered:

1.1 Reclassification of Deposits

• Proposed Amendment : Modify the act to require banks to reclassify deposits as liabilities to the Norwegian State Treasury rather than treating them as liabilities to depositors.
• Explanation : This would reflect the principle that banks act as custodians of depositor funds, with the State Treasury holding the ultimate responsibility for these funds. This change would clarify the relationship between banks, depositors, and the State.
• Impact : This would enhance transparency and reduce the risk of bank runs by ensuring that depositors' funds are fully backed by the State Treasury.

1.2 Explicit Recognition of Seigniorage

• Proposed Amendment : Require banks to explicitly account for seigniorage payments as an expense in their financial statements.
• Explanation : This would provide a clearer picture of the costs associated with money creation and align the incentives of banks and the State.
• Impact : Increased transparency would discourage reckless lending practices and ensure that seigniorage revenues are used for public welfare.

2. **Amendments to the Norwegian National Budget Framework

To integrate seigniorage revenues into the national budget, the following changes should be made:

2.1 Incorporation of Seigniorage Revenue

• Proposed Amendment : Introduce a dedicated line item for "Credit from Monetary Seigniorage" in the State's cash flow statement.
• Explanation : This would enhance fiscal transparency and accountability, ensuring that seigniorage revenues are properly recorded and utilized.
• Impact : This would provide a stable source of revenue for the government, which could be used to fund public services or reduce national debt.

3. **Amendments to the Norwegian Central Bank Act (Norges Bank-loven)

The Central Bank Act should be updated to align with QB principles:

3.1 Explicit Recording of Money Creation

• Proposed Amendment : Require Norges Bank to explicitly record the creation of money (e.g., through lending or purchases of government bonds) in its cash flow statements.
• Explanation : This would promote consistency across monetary authorities and provide a transparent mechanism for tracking the impact of monetary policy.
• Impact : Greater transparency in monetary policy would help regulators monitor credit expansion and prevent speculative bubbles.

4. **Amendments to the Banking Law (Bankloven)

The Banking Law should be revised to reflect the principles of QB:

4.1 Segregation of Deposits

• Proposed Amendment : Mandate banks to segregate customer deposits from their own balance sheets, ensuring that deposited funds are not used for speculative activities.
• Explanation : This would reduce the risk of bank runs and enhance financial stability by ensuring that depositors' funds are fully backed by the State Treasury.
• Impact : This would provide greater protection for depositors and reduce the likelihood of systemic crises.

4.2 Capital Adequacy Rules

• Proposed Amendment : Exclude deposits from Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) calculations, reflecting their status as segregated funds.
• Explanation : This would align with the principles of QB and ensure that banks are not over-leveraged.
• Impact : This would promote a more stable and transparent banking system, reducing the risk of excessive lending.

5. **Amendments to the Norwegian Civil Code

To ensure that the legal framework supports the principles of QB, the following changes should be made:

5.1 Ownership of Deposits

• Proposed Amendment : Clarify that depositors retain full ownership of their funds, with banks acting solely as custodians.
• Explanation : This would align with international accounting standards (e.g., IAS 7 and IFRS 9) and ensure that deposits are treated as "cash equivalents" belonging to the customer.
• Impact : This would enhance depositor confidence and reduce the need for deposit insurance schemes.

5.2 Seigniorage Liability

• Proposed Amendment : Require banks to record a liability to the State Treasury equal to the nominal value of newly created deposits.
• Explanation : This would reflect the seigniorage benefit derived from money creation and ensure transparency in financial reporting.
• Impact : This would promote a more transparent and accountable banking system.

6. **Amendments to the Consumer Protection Act (Forbrukerloven)

To protect depositors and ensure transparency, the Consumer Protection Act should be updated:

6.1 Deposit Protection

• Proposed Amendment : Introduce explicit protections for depositors, ensuring that their funds are fully backed by the State Treasury.
• Explanation : This would reduce the risk of bank runs and enhance financial stability.
• Impact : This would provide greater assurance to depositors and reduce the likelihood of panic-driven withdrawals.

7. Transition Plan

To ensure a smooth transition to QB, a phased implementation plan should be developed:

7.1 Phase 1: Pilot Program

• Action : Select a few banks to participate in a pilot program to test the feasibility of QB.
• Duration : 1-2 years.
• Objective : Gather data and refine the implementation process.

7.2 Phase 2: Full Implementation

• Action : Roll out QB to all banks in Norway.
• Duration : 3-5 years.
• Objective : Ensure that all banks are compliant with the new regulations.

7.3 Phase 3: Continuous Monitoring and Adjustment

• Action : Establish a monitoring committee to oversee the implementation of QB and make adjustments as necessary.
• Duration : Ongoing.
• Objective : Ensure that the system remains stable and transparent.

8. Public Communication and Education

To build trust and ensure broad support for QB, the following steps should be taken:

8.1 Public Awareness Campaigns

• Action : Launch campaigns to educate the public and stakeholders about the benefits of QB, emphasizing transparency, financial stability, and depositor protection.
• Objective : Build public support and ensure that all stakeholders understand the changes.

8.2 Stakeholder Engagement

• Action : Engage policymakers, regulators, and industry leaders in the planning process to ensure buy-in and support.
• Objective : Foster collaboration and ensure that all stakeholders are aligned.

Conclusion

Implementing Quantitative Balancing (QB) in Norway would require a series of regulatory and legal reforms, focusing on reclassifying deposits, explicitly recognizing seigniorage, enhancing transparency, and ensuring financial stability. By carefully managing the transition and engaging stakeholders, Norway can establish a more transparent and resilient banking system, aligning with the principles of QB.