Risky Business: Berkeley Mayor and Councilmember Robinson Propose a Public Bank with Startup Costs of $40 Million in Taxpayer Funds

Other Progressive Governments Have Rejected Public Banks Citing Excessive Costs and Financial Risks

As Berkeley’s infrastructure continues to crumble and financial liabilities escalate, one would hope the Mayor and Council would focus on closing this gap. Perhaps they would consider scaling back the record growth in spending, so resources could be redeployed to address our maintenance deficit. But apparently the fundamental functions of municipal government are too mundane for this Mayor and Council as their latest push is to adopt a resolution to draft a plan to risk millions of public dollars to create a “public bank.” The startup cost of this endeavor is projected to be $40 million.


Mayor Arreguin and Councilmember Robinson are leading this effort, and they have recommended adoption of a resolution of intention to form the Public Bank East Bay with approval of up to $50K to develop a business plan. Arreguin and Robinson also present a “viability study” authored by advocates for the Public Bank. The viability study suggests funds should address the climate and housing crisis while it assigns blame for “structural [financing] problems” on Wall Street banks.


Small banks have been driven out of the market by Wall Street banks, or have been bought out or merged into larger banks. This has left banking deserts around the state, including in the East Bay. In 1994, the state had 500 community banks, but by 2017 it had only 124. While this corporate concentration may have brought convenience for some customers, it has caused pain to many others.

Public Bank East Bay Viability Study

Issue appropriation aside, the reduction in the number of community banks appears to have little to do with Wall Street. Rather, the FDIC attributes these reductions to voluntary mergers between community banks to improve the financial position of the acquired bank because it is typically underperforming.


In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, banks have been required to strengthen their asset positions. Therefore, this consolidation among community banks is generally good for customers and society because it increases assets and reduces risks of failure (requiring public bailouts) while preserving services. It is important to note that fewer banks does not necessarily mean less services. In fact, similar service levels are now supported by larger, more stable community banking organizations.

Community banks also make up the vast majority of merger participants on both sides of the deal. Most community banks that are acquired merge with other community banks, which results in a community banking sector composed of somewhat larger institutions that continue to provide essential financial services within a limited geographic market.

FDIC Quarterly 2017 • Volume 11 • Number 4

The FDIC also concluded that community banks were profitable and could successfully compete against their typically larger noncommunity bank competitors. Further, the viability study implies that a public bank is a way to remove our city’s government deposits from large Wall Street banks. But 53 percent of state and local deposits are already held by community banks, meaning a public bank could displace locally based community banks. In other words, Arreguin and Robinson’s “solution” appears to exacerbate the problem the viability study claims needs solving.

Beside this dubious rationale, the City would also be assuming enormous financial costs and risks. For example, the only existing public bank in the US is not FDIC insured. Berkeley would have to provide financial guarantees in the event of defaults on a bank’s loans. The feasibility study also cites Germany as an example, but fails to mention that the bulk of losses related to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis were from loans provided by public banks. Massachusetts rejected a public bank proposal citing the high costs, risks, and unclear benefits including a significant initial investment of capital.  Chicago, echoed similar concerns. The viability study presented by Arreguin and Robinson does not mention these risks, historical losses, or the Massacchusetts study. Therefore, a city-funded study apparently omitted evidence of downside risk associated with the policy proposal it was charged with analyzing.

The Commission recommends that the Legislature not pursue establishing a bank owned by the Commonwealth or by a public authority constituted by the Commonwealth. The primary reasons for the Commission’s recommendation are that a state-owned bank would require significant initial capital investment … the public funds of the Commonwealth would be exposed to unacceptably high risk if deposited in a state-owned bank.

Report of the Commission to Study the Feasibility of Establishing a Bank Owned by the Commonwealth

To date, multiple jurisdictions have rejected creating public banks because of unacceptably high risk and cost. The Arreguin and Robinson proposal calls for forming the Public Bank East Bay alongside Oakland & Richmond to be governed by city council members. This language suggests a joint powers authority model with capital investment from three or more jurisdictions. Such complexity appears unprecedented. What jurisdiction’s taxpayers would underwrite a default on a Berkeley-based business with operations in Richmond and Oakland?


The Arreguin and Robinson plan also calls for the bank’s board of directors to be composed of city council members setting the stage for potentially significant conflict of interest scenarios. City council members could be authorizing “in their district or city” projects and programs financed with bank funds.

The Public Bank East Bay's proposed governance plan requires that each member city designate one councilmember to sit on the Public Bank East Bay's Board of Directors

Berkeley City Council Resolution of Intent


In summary, a preponderance of evidence suggests that the Arreguin and Robinson banking proposal is an expensive and risky endeavor that would serve to undermine our existing community banking infrastructure. 


There is no need to spend another $50K to assess the financial benefits and risks of forming the Public Bank East Bay. We have done the research for you here, just follow the links and save our tax dollars. Please don't  squander limited public resources to champion expansive programs that lack evidence of need or effectiveness. Our City has pressing needs that demand immediate attention. Will you come to your senses? We are not banking on it!



Revision: the original post indicated the City of Berkeley had spend $25K on the Feasibility Study. The City Council resolution states: "WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley began formally assessing the feasibility of establishing a public bank with a $25,000 allocation made in 2017 to support the development of a feasibility study for the Public Bank of the East Bay.


According to a commenter (see below) Berkeley did not put any money into the viability study.” The post has been revised based on this comment.


14 comments:

  1. What a piece of crap reporting!! It looks like the author is hand in glove with Wall Street firms!! Shameful fear tactics are being used to scare the public.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Anonymous: Help me understand: what points in this article inform your opinion? I pose this question respectfully and in all seriousness. Without reasoning and substantiation, your comment is it's own kind of fear-mongering and erodes fruitful discussion. (Not posting anonymously would also help take your comments seriously.)

    I'm truly open to all views based in fact and evidence - that's the only way we'll get to truth and good results - but you provided no basis for yours. It's irresponsbile.

    The article has references and citations...my read is that it's responsible reportage and a public service. Any read of fear-mongering is about how reckless our leaders are with the City's finances - that's a real scare.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My mistake! I didn't realize I needed to indicate and enter a choice to make sure my comment was attributed to me and not anonymous. The Anonynous commenter I responded to probably made the same error (I apologize for that, Anonymous on March 4, 2023 @ 11am). I made the Anonymous comment @ 1:27pm.

    I

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good article. Stepping on the toes of existing credit unions is not going to expand services to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm the chair of the Friends of the Public Bank East Bay (publicbankeastbay.org). We are 100% in support of cities and other governments living within their means, and public banks are part of the way that can happen. Currently, Berkeley pays tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the Wall Street banks for the privilege of managing our tax dollars. With a public bank, that money would go to a bank which invests locally (rather than funneling money to rich outside investors and antisocial projects) and passes some of its profits back to the cities as return on investment.

    Corrections of fact:

    1) Berkeley (and the other cities) did not put any money into the viability study, which was totally funded by the Friends of the Public Bank East Bay.

    2) the California state law regulating local public banks requires FDIC insurance (the reason the Bank of North Dakota is not FDIC insured is that it was established before there was an FDIC).

    3) The Board of Directors will have a majority of bankers and community experts in areas of investment such as affordable housing and small business loans. Berkeley will have one seat on the proposed 15-member board; all the cities and county together will have 5 of those 15 seats. The Bank will be run by qualified, experienced bankers (not politicians) and be regulated by the State of California as well as the FDIC.

    4) The American Banker is a very biased site, but even they cannot realistically claim that the bulk of losses from the 2008 subprime crisis were from public banks, when it has already been noted that there is only one functioning public bank in the U.S., and it is from the small state of North Dakota--which, in fact, had the lowest subprime mortgage loss in the country, in significant part due to its public bank.

    5) The complexity of the arrangement is in part to make good use of Alameda County's much larger budget. A good precedent is East Bay Community Energy, which is thriving, has paid its debts to the county, and is creating returns for homeowners.

    We would be happy to have a public conversation about these issues with the principals of Within Our Means. We all want the same thing, which is thriving cities which can serve their residents and manage their money well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. which wall street banksbdoes the city use?

      Delete
    2. Thank you Debbie, the post has been updated based on the comment above.

      Delete
    3. Berkeley uses Wells Fargo, the most notoriously felonious of the lot.

      Delete
  6. Why not use a local credit union so the members have direct say how money is spent in the city it’s in and can also vote on use and vote in credit union reps who are versed in the skills to interact with city council etc as big items come up that would require savvy negotiation and helpful reporting back to its customer membership??
    Local credit union, local members, local reps, local money stays in the community to circulate for the best interest running a town along with city council who because of membership affiliation and not just city council bulldozing would be required to include all credit union stakeholders.
    Please note, I am not particularly literate on the ins and outs of the current public bank construct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Local credit unions are great, and we support them unequivocally, for exactly the reasons you list. I do all of my banking through one. That being said, they aren't either legally or practically equipped to handle public money, especially when public banks develop to the point of cash management for the cities and other government entities. Community banks come closer, but have a lot of the same limitations.

      The California Public Banking Act _requires_ local public banks to partner with these entities (and also Community Development Financial Institutions) and forbids competition. These partnerships will be one of the strongest aspects of Public Bank East Bay.

      Delete
  7. The following comments we made on Nextdoor and the post has been revised to address inaccuracies:

    That article from the "womberkeley" is very inaccurate and misrepresents how public banking works. Please read the response from Debbie Notkin included here: I'm the chair of the Friends of the Public Bank East Bay (publicbankeastbay.org). We are 100% in support of cities and other governments living within their means, and public banks are part of the way that can happen. Currently, Berkeley pays tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the Wall Street banks for the privilege of managing our tax dollars. With a public bank, that money would go to a bank which invests locally (rather than funneling money to rich outside investors and antisocial projects) and passes some of its profits back to the cities as return on investment.

    Corrections of fact:

    1) Berkeley (and the other cities) did not put any money into the viability study, which was totally funded by the Friends of the Public Bank East Bay.

    2) the California state law regulating local public banks requires FDIC insurance (the reason the Bank of North Dakota is not FDIC insured is that it was established before there was an FDIC).

    3) The Board of Directors will have a majority of bankers and community experts in areas of investment such as affordable housing and small business loans. Berkeley will have one seat on the proposed 15-member board; all the cities and county together will have 5 of those 15 seats. The Bank will be run by qualified, experienced bankers (not politicians) and be regulated by the State of California as well as the FDIC.

    4) The American Banker is a very biased site, but even they cannot realistically claim that the bulk of losses from the 2008 subprime crisis were from public banks, when it has already been noted that there is only one functioning public bank in the U.S., and it is from the small state of North Dakota--which, in fact, had the lowest subprime mortgage loss in the country, in significant part due to its public bank.

    5) The complexity of the arrangement is in part to make good use of Alameda County's much larger budget. A good precedent is East Bay Community Energy, which is thriving, has paid its debts to the county, and is creating returns for homeowners.

    We would be happy to have a public conversation about these issues with the principals of Within Our Means. We all want the same thing, which is thriving cities which can serve their residents and manage their money well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. They should quit their cit council jobs and open a bank themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will arreguin run a bank like he runs Berkeley? No thanks

    ReplyDelete