DUTIES OF BANKERS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 155, 14 April 1936, Page 8

DUTIES OF BANKERS.

CUSTODY OF DEPOSIT MONEY NO CALL TO BE DICTATORS. The limits of a banker’s duty in assisting the work of economic reconstruction were dealt with by Mr J. Beaumont Pease (chairman of Lloyds Bank, Limited) at the annual meeting in London recently. “There is no unanimity in regard to either the powers or the duties of bankers,” said Mr Pease. “For myself I still regard our first duty as the safe custody of our depositors’ money. Our next duty to the public, in so far as it is compatible with the first, is to do what wej can by way of giving financial assistance and advice to our customers, and generally to conduct our business on the soundest and best lines. I cannot bring myself to agree with those who take a much wider view both of our powers and our duties. AVe cannot go out into the highways and hedges and compel reluctant borrowers to come in and demand loans, nor in my judgment ought we to assume the attitude of dictators in laying down rules of our own making. “There are many who think it is within the capacity of bankers to extend credit indefinitely and control not only the volume but also to dictate the direction of credit and assume an omnipotent knowledge as to what type of loan is in the national interest and what ought to be withheld on tne grounds that it is anti-social. These are distinctions on which different in dividuals, whether they are politicians, bankers or industrialists, take different views, and it would be mere presumption on the part of bankers to try and dictate on these matters. A banker bad to administer his business as ofey erytscanonh emeitehtb esl r best lie can cn the merits of every question as it conies before him, but it would be just as much folly for him to try and dictate the lines on which the industries or politics of the country should be run as it would be for politicians or industrialists to try and run the banks.

“Among those who, in the contrary, think they are capable of running all three, there is some recognition of a bank’s limitations. While admitting that it is unsound for a bank to lend its depositors’ money in risky enterprises, or to lock it up in permanent loans of a capital nature, they use this concession as an argument fer the nationalisation of the banks, apparently on the assumption that what is bad business for the privately owned bank may ho perfectly sound if the bank belongs to the State.”