Narrow banking was denied a depositor account at the fed IIRC so it's basically DOA as they've envisioned it.

IIRC the fed said that narrow banking threatens the stability of the banking system since private credit expansion (and ultimately, the risks that come with that) is in their estimation desirable. Regulators want nothing but to crush the idea.

> IIRC the fed said that narrow banking threatens the stability of the banking system since private credit expansion (and ultimately, the risks that come with that) is in their estimation desirable. Regulators want nothing but to crush the idea.

But why? I don't understand, I feel like certain exceptions like (credit cards?) or house loans can be built or some personal loans but we all see a disaster which will be billed by govt. thus impacting everybody

The govt itself can then buy ETF's once again / invest money from one way or other via pension funds or other funds (sovereign funds?) to the stock markets themselves or other avenues.

banks basically arbitrage the fact that they are FDIC insured and loans. Nothing wrong with it except the fact that most banks would keep most of the money with themselves and only give chump change to average person or even 0%. If that's the case, why isn't there a bank which can just provide 3% treasury funds or similar or (gold?) and then just help the average person.

I saw a lot of points I agreed upon the narrow banking website on and I'd love to discuss more about the harms of narrow banking compared to fractional and why regulators shot it down/just comparing the two of them.