Part 13

"Just as we have (except for some obsolescent survivals) separated the function of issuing paper money from that of keeping current accounts, so we shall separate the function of keeping current accounts from that of money-lending. The habit of the British banker of combining in one and the same concern (a) the essentially routine business of keeping current accounts or receiving deposits; and (b) the much more difficult and hazardous business of lending capital to private traders, is not a necessary characteristic of banking organisation; and, whilst possibly the most profitable to the profit-seeking banker, this combination may not be the most advantageous from the standpoint of the community.

"It may accordingly be suggested that the business of banking, as understood in this country, is destined to be further divided into two parts, one of which is ripe for immediate nationalisation, and need no longer be carried on for private profit, whilst the other should be the sphere of a number of separate and diversely specialised organisations catering for particular needs. The whole of the deposit and current account side of banking--with its services in the way of keeping securities, collecting dividends, meeting calls, making regular payments, and carrying through the purchase and sale of securities--ought to be united with the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks and the money order and other postal remittance business, and run as a national service for the receipt and custody of cash, for the utmost possible development of the cheque system, and for the cheapest possible organisation of remittances. There is no longer any reason why this important branch of social organisation should be abandoned to the profit-maker, should be made the instrument of levying an unnecessarily heavy toll on the customers for the benefit of shareholders, and should now be exposed to the imminent danger of monopoly.

"If the receipt and custody of deposits and the keeping of current accounts were made a public service the Government might invest the funds thus placed at its disposal in a variety of ways. A certain proportion, perhaps corresponding to what is now held as savings, would be invested, as at present, in Government securities--not Consols, but such as are repayable at par at fixed dates, including Treasury Bills and Terminable Annuities; and any increase in this amount would, in effect, release so much capital for other uses, by paying off part of the National Debt. But the bulk of the amount, corresponding with the proportion of their resources that the bankers now lend for business purposes, might be advanced, for terms of varying duration, partly to Government Departments and local authorities for all their great and rapidly extending enterprises, formerly abandoned to the profit-maker; and partly to a series of financial concerns, whose business it should be to discount the bills and satisfy the requests for loans of those profit-makers who now appeal to the bankers. But these financial concerns should be organised, it is suggested, very largely by trades and industries, specialising in particular lines, and devoted, so far as possible, to meeting the business needs of the different occupations. Whether they should be financial concerns, owned and directed by shareholders, and ran for their profit; or whether they might not, in some cases, be owned and directed by the great industrial associations and combinations that the Government is now promoting in the various industries, and be run for the advantage of the industries as wholes, may be a matter for consideration and possible experiment. In either case, the concerns to which the Government would lend its capital would, of course, have to be of undoubted financial stability to be secured, it may be, by large uncalled capital, or by the joint and several guarantees of a numerous membership; coupled, possibly, with a charge on the assets."

At first sight this proposal to differentiate the functions of banking is somewhat startling, and one wonders whether it could possibly work. On consideration, however, there seems to be nothing actually impracticable about the scheme. The Government would presumably take over all the offices and branches of the banks of the country, and would therein accept money on deposit and current account, making itself liable to pay the money out on demand or at notice, as the case may be, just as is done by the existing banks; it would hold the necessary cash reserve, and it would apparently itself invest a certain proportion of the money in Government securities, as the banks do at present. The more difficult part of the banking business, the advancing of money to borrowing customers, it would hand over to financial institutions, created for this purpose presumably out of the ashes of the nationalised banking business. These institutions would make themselves responsible for the lending side of banking, and would obviously, and naturally, be allowed to make a profit on this side of the business. In this differentiation Mr Webb's ingenuity is seen at its very best. He reserves for the State that part of banking which is purely a matter of routine, and he leaves to private enterprise that part of it which requiries the elasticity and judgment and quickness in which the average bureaucrat is most likely to fail. A certain amount of friction may easily arise from this differentiation. The interest that the State would be enabled to allow to depositors would clearly depend to a great extent on the interest which it would be able to receive from the financial institutions engaged in lending the money. These institutions could naturally pay the State interest according to the rate which they were able to charge their borrowing customers, leaving themselves a margin for profit and for protection against the risk that their business would involve. It is obvious that there might at times be considerable difficulty in adjusting these two different points of view, and anybody who knows anything about the length of time and argument involved in inducing officials to make up their minds can only fear that occasional jarring in this connecting link between the two sides of banking might sometimes produce effects which would be awkward for the industry of the country.

But apart from this obvious difficulty, can we contemplate with equanimity the prospect of the State monopoly of the ordinary banking facilities as they present themselves to the man in the street, namely, the provision of bank branches, the use of the cheque book, the custody of securities and any other articles that the customer wishes to leave with his bank? At present the ease and quickness with which these routine matters of banking are carried out in England are developed to a point which is the envy of foreign visitors. How would it be if every cashier of every bank were converted by the process of nationalisation from the kindly, businesslike human being as we know him into the kind of person who ministers to our wants behind the counters of the Post Office? As it is, we go into our bank, to present a cheque in order to provide ourselves with cash for the daily purposes of life; the cashier looks at the signature, recognises the customer, hands him over the money. If that cashier became a Government official how long would it take him to verify the signature, to see whether the customer really had a balance to his credit, and finally furnish him with what he wanted? It is obvious that the change suggested by Mr Webb, though it might work, could only work to the detriment of the convenience of the public, and his hopeful view that the elimination of the profits of the shareholders would mean that these profits would go into the pockets of the community in the form of cheapened facilities for banking customers is an ideal largely based on the assumption, that has so often been proved to be incorrect, that the State can do business as well and as cheaply as private enterprise. It is much more likely that after a few years' time the public would find the business of paying in and getting out its money a very much more tedious and irritating process than it is at present, and that the expenses of the matter would have grown to such an extent that the taxpayer might be called upon annually to make good a considerable loss.

XIII

FOREIGN CAPITAL

September, 1918

The Difference between Aims and Acts--Should Foreign Capital be allowed in British Industry?--The Supremacy of London and National Trade--No Need to fear German Capital--We shall need all we can get--Foreign Shares in British Companies--Can and should the Disclosure of Foreign Ownership be forced?--The Difficulties of the Problem--Aliens and British Shipping--The Position of "Key" Industries--Freedom to Import and Export Capital our Best Policy.

Many things that are now happening must be tickling the sardonic humour of the Muse of History. The majority of the civilised Powers are banded together to overthrow a menace to civilisation, carrying on a war which, it is hoped, is to produce a state of things in which mankind, purged of the evil spirits of militarism and aggression, is to start on a new order of co-operation. At the same time, while we are engaged in fighting under banners with these noble ideals inscribed on them, a large number of citizens of this country are airing proposals aimed at restrictions upon our intercourse with other nations, especially in the economic sphere. In last month's issue of this Journal a very interesting article, signed "Veritas," discussed the question as to how far it was in the power of the Allies to make use of the economic weapon against their enemies after the war. That such a question should even be mooted as an end to a war undertaken with these objects, shows what a number of queer cross-currents are at work in the minds of many of us to-day. But some people go much further than that, and are advocating policies by which we should even restrict our commercial and economic intercourse with our brothers-in-arms. If the clamour for Imperial preference is to have any practical result, it can only tend to cultivate trade within the British Empire, protected by an economic ring-fence at the expense of the trade which, before the war, we carried on with our present Allies. And a large number of people who, under the cover of Imperial preference, are agitating also for Protection for this country, would endeavour to make the British Isles as far as possible self-sufficient at the expense of their trade, not only with all their present Allies, but even with their brethren overseas.

It is fortunately probable that the very muddle-headed reasoning which is producing such curious results as these, at a time when the world is preparing to enter on a period of closer co-operation and improved and extended relations between one country and another, is confined, in fact, to a few noisy people who possess in a high degree the faculty of successful self-advertisement. I do not believe that the country as a whole is prepared to relinquish the economic policy which gave it such an enormous increase in material resources during the past century, and has enabled it to stand forward as the industrial and financial champion of the Allied cause during the difficult early years of the war. Our rulers seem to be sitting very carefully on the top of the fence, waiting to see which way the cat is going to jump. They have made brave statements about abrogating all treaties involving the most-favoured nation clause and about adopting the principle of Imperial preference; but when their eager followers press them to do something besides talking about what they are going to do, they then have a tendency to return to the domain of common-sense and to point out that it is above all desirable that our economic policy should be in unison with that of the United States.

Whatever may happen in the realm of trade and commercial policy, it would seem to be self-evident that with regard to capital it would be still more difficult and undesirable to impose restrictions than with regard to the entry of goods; and above all, it seems to be obvious that at any rate the free entry of capital into this country is a matter which should be specially encouraged when the war is over. At that difficult period we have to secure, if possible, that British industry shall be entirely unhampered in its endeavours to carry out the very puzzling operations involved by transferring its energies from war activities to peace production. However well the thing may be managed, it will be an exceedingly difficult and complicated operation. In certain industries, especially in shipbuilding and engineering, the building trade and all the allied enterprises, those who are responsible for their efficient management ought to be able to count upon a keen and widely-spread demand for their products. But in many industries there will necessarily be a good deal of doubt as to the kind of article which the consuming public at home and abroad is likely to want. There will be the great difficulty of sorting out the right kind of labour, of obtaining the necessary raw materials, and of getting the necessary credit and capital.

That this huge problem can be solved, and solved so well that the country can go ahead to a great period of increased productivity and prosperity, I fully believe; but this can only be done if it is able to command the most efficient co-operation of all the various factors in production--if employers put their best brains and if workers put their best energy into the business, and if everything is done to make the whole machinery work with the utmost possible smoothness. One element in the machinery, and a highly important one, is the question of capital. During the war the citizens of this country have been trained to save and to put their money at the disposal of the Government with a success which could hardly have been expected when the war began. Whether they will continue to exercise the same self-denial when the war is over Is a very open question. At any rate, there can be no doubt that there will be a tendency among a very large number of people who have answered the appeal to save money for the war to listen with considerable indifference to any appeals that may be made to them to save money in order to provide industry with capital. All the capital that industry can get, it will certainly want. If, besides what it can get at home, it can also get a considerable amount from foreign countries, then its ability to resume work on a prosperous and profitable basis when the war is over will be very greatly helped. This would seem to be so obvious that one might have thought that even a Government which is believed to be flirting with what is called Tariff Reform would think twice before it imposed any restrictions on the free flow of foreign capital into British industry. In so far as foreigners lend to us we shall be able to import raw materials, to be worked up to the profit of British industry, in return for promises to pay--very timely convenience at a critical moment.

Nevertheless, it would appear that obviousness of the desirability of foreign capital, from whatever source it comes, is by no means evident to those who are now in charge of the nation's destinies. At any rate, the Company Law Amendment Committee, which was appointed last February "to inquire what amendments are expedient in the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917, particularly having regard to circumstances arising out of the war and of the developments likely to arise on its conclusion," seems to have thought it necessary to provide the Government with schemes by which alien capital could, if the Government thought necessary, be kept out of the country. It was a powerful and representative Committee, and it is very satisfactory to note that its own view concerning the policy to be pursued was strongly in favour of freedom. It points out in its Report that the question which lay in the forefront of its investigations was that of the employment of foreign capital in British industries. On the preliminary question of whether it was desirable that foreign capital should be freely attracted to this country, there was little, if any, difference of opinion. For this very sensible conclusion the Committee gives rather a curious reason. It states that the maintenance of London as the financial centre of the world is of the first importance for the well-being of the Empire, and that anything which could impede or restrict the free flow of capital to the United Kingdom would, in itself, be prejudicial to Imperial interests.

Now, of course, if is entirely true that the maintenance of London as a financial centre is very important, but I venture to think that those who are most jealous concerning the prestige of London and the importance of its financial operations would say that it ranks only second to the industrial efficiency of the country as a whole and cannot, in fact, be long maintained unless there is that industrial efficiency behind it, providing a surplus out of which London may be able to finance the world and so, incidentally, and as a side issue, be to a great extent helped by foreign capital to do so. It is surely evident that a financial supremacy which was based merely on a jobbing business, gathering in capital from one nation and lending it to another, would be an extremely precarious and artificial structure, the continuance of which could not be relied on for many decades. Finance can only flourish healthily and wholesomely in a country which produces a considerable surplus of goods and services which it is prepared to place at the disposal of the world. Owing to the possession of this surplus it becomes a market in capital, and so gets a considerable jobbing business, but the backbone and foundation of its position must be, in the end, industrial activity in the widest sense of the word. It therefore seems that the Committee's argument that the free flow of capital is essential to the maintenance of London's finance might have been reinforced by the very much stronger one that it is essential to the recuperative power of British industry, which will need every assistance it can get in order to re-establish itself after the war.

The Committee points out that "any legislation which would tend to impede or restrict the free flow of capital here by imposing restrictions or creating impediments ought to be jealously watched, lest in the endeavour to prevent what has come to be called 'peaceful penetration' the normal course of commercial development should be arrested," and it goes on to observe that at the end of the war, "if it should be concluded upon such terms as we hope and anticipate," it is not likely that our present enemies will be in possession of capital looking for employment abroad. This is certainly very true. By the time the Germans have made the reparations, which will involve so much rebuilding in Belgium and in the parts of France that they have overrun and swept clean of industrial plant, and have in other respects made good the damage which their ruthless and uncivilised methods of warfare have inflicted, not only on their enemies, but on neutrals, it does not seem likely that they will have much to spare for capital expansion in foreign countries, especially when we consider how many problems of reconstruction they will themselves have to face at home. "To impose restrictions upon the influx of capital," the Report continues, "aimed at our present enemies, with the result of deterring the flow of capital from (say) America, would be a policy highly injurious to the economic recovery and renewed prosperity of this country after the war. For these reasons we are of opinion that in all amendments of the law falling within the scope of our reference, the expediency of the attraction of foreign capital should be steadily borne in mind." The Committee thus seems to have thought it necessary to administer comfort to anybody who might fear that the unrestricted flow of capital from abroad might involve this country in the terrible danger of being assisted in its industrial recovery by capital from Germany.

If there were, in fact, any possibility of this assistance being given, it would seem to be extremely short-sighted not to allow British industry to make use of it. In the matter of "peaceful penetration," we have ourselves in the past done perhaps as much as all the rest of the countries of the world put together, with the result that we have greatly stimulated the development of economic prosperity all over the world; in fact, it may be argued that the great progress made in the last century in man's power over the forces of Nature has been to a great extent due to the freedom with which we invested capital abroad and opened a free market to the products of all other countries. At a time when, owing to exceptional circumstances, we ourselves happen to be in need of capital, it would appear to be an extremely short-sighted policy to refuse to admit it, wherever it came from. We have excellent reason to known that, when capital is once invested in a foreign country, it is largely in the power of the inhabitants and Government of that country to control its working. Any foreigner, even an enemy, who set up a factory in England after the war would be doing just the very thing which we most of all want to be done, namely, setting the wheels of industry going, relieving the labour market from a possible glut after demobilisation, and helping that difficult stage of transition from war work to peace work.

The Committee, however, considers that "at the root of the whole matter lies a question which is not one of Company Law amendment at all, but one of high political and economic policy." It does not fall within its province "to inquire whether the traditional policy of this country to admit and welcome all who seek our shores and submit themselves loyally to our laws ought, in the case of some and what aliens, to be revised"; or whether discrimination ought to be made between an alien of one nationality and an alien of another. "As regards aliens who are now our enemies, it may be that the British Empire may adopt the policy that a special stigma ought to be attached to the German, and that neither as an individual nor as a firm, nor as a corporation, ought he, for a time at any rate, to be admitted to commercial fellowship or to any fellowship with the civilised nations of the world." It need not be said that any attempt to apply this stigma in practice would be extremely difficult to carry out, would involve all kinds of difficulties and complications in trade and in finance, and that the threat of it is more likely than anything else to stiffen the resistance of the Germans and to force them to rely on their militarist leaders as their only hope of salvation. However, the Committee points out that recent legislation shows a desire to ascertain and record the extent to which aliens are active in commerce here, and thinks it necessary to make provision to meet the requirements of the Government in case our rulers should decide to impose the restrictions which its own common-sense shows it are so undesirable.

If, it says, foreign capital is to be attracted here, it must be represented either by shares or by debentures. "The question, therefore, is whether restrictions ought to be imposed upon the extent to which the control of the company shall be allowed to reside in aliens, either by reason of their holding a majority of the shares, or of the debentures, or by reason of their obtaining a majority upon the Board of Directors; and, if so, how disclosure of their alien character is to be enforced." It goes on to point out the great difficulties which present themselves in the way of securing disclosure of nationality and ensuring that aliens shall not command the control. "The law of trusts," it says, "is firmly established in this country. If A, be the registered holder of a share, he is not necessarily the beneficial owner. He may be a trustee for B. To enact that the registered holder must be a British subject effects nothing, for B. may be an alien and an enemy. Suppose, however, that you enact that A., when his share is allotted or transferred to him, shall make a declaration that he holds in his own right, or that he holds in trust for B., and that both A. and B. are British subjects. There is nothing to prevent the creation of a new trust the next day, under which C., an alien enemy, will be the person beneficially entitled. Further, at the earlier date (the date of allotment or transfer) the facts may be that A. (a British subject) is trustee for B. (a British subject), but that B. (unknown to A.) is a trustee for C., an alien enemy. The fact that B. is trustee for C. would be purposely withheld from A., and A.'s declaration that he was simply trustee for B. would be perfectly true. To require that A. should make a declaration at short intervals (say once a month), or that A., B., C., and so on, should all make declarations would be, of course, so harassing and so detrimental as to be, as a matter of business, impossible. The only effectual way of dealing with the matter would be by a provision that the share might be forfeited, or might be sold and the proceeds paid to the owner, if an alien should be, or become beneficially entitled to or interested in the share. Such a provision does not in the general case commend itself to us as practical or desirable." Any endeavour to control the nationality of the Board of Directors produces similar difficulties. It is easy to ensure that they shall be all, or a majority of them, British subjects, but there is no means of ensuring that their actions shall not be controlled by aliens whose nationality is not disclosed.

Having pointed out these difficulties, which seem in effect to reduce the whole question to the domain of farce, the Committee goes on to inquire whether it is desirable to legislate in the direction of forbidding the employment of foreign capital here in Joint Stock Companies, unless:--

(1) There is disclosure of the alien character of the foreign owner; (2) Not more than a certain proportion of the Company's shares are held by aliens; (3) The Board, or a certain proportion of the Board, shall not be alien;

and, further, whether it is desirable to discriminate between one alien and another, and to legislate in that direction in the case of certain aliens and not of others.

In answering these questions, the Committee decided that it was necessary to discriminate between certain classes of companies--Class A being companies in general, Class B being companies owning British shipping, and Class C companies engaged in "key" industries. With regard to companies in Class A, they recommend that no restrictions at all be imposed, but, nevertheless, they elaborate a scheme of enforcing disclosure of alien ownership if that policy seems to the legislature to be right. This scheme, the Committee admits, is necessarily detailed and laborious; it puts difficulties in the way of investment in English securities, whether by British subject or alien. It would supply, no doubt, to the Board of Trade useful information as to the extent of foreign investment in English industries, but the price paid for this advantage would, in the Committee's opinion, be too great. If adopted, the scheme could be evaded. And, with regard to companies in general, the Committee's recommendations go the length of allowing complete freedom as to the nationality both of the corporators and of the Board. They would allow, for instance, American capitalists to come here and establish themselves as a British corporation in which all the corporators and all the directors were American, and so with every other nationality. They would make no discrimination between aliens of different nationality, for, if there is to be such discrimination, there must be the machinery of disclosure, involving a deterrent effect and acting prejudicially in the case of all investors. But, if any such discrimination were adopted, the Committee thinks that at any rate it should be limited to some short period, say, three or five years after the end of the war.

If, however, the legislature should decide upon the necessity of disclosure of alien ownership, the Committee draws up the following scheme for securing it in Paragraph 15 of its Report:

15. For reasons already given, it is not possible efficiently to ensure full disclosure, but the following suggestions would, in the absence of deliberate and intentional evasion (which would be quite possible), meet the point and in the large majority of cases would disclose the extent of alien interests and control:--

(a) Every allottee of shares upon allotment and every transferee upon transfer should be required to make a declaration disclosing his nationality and whether he is the beneficial owner of the shares, and, if not, for whom he is trustee, and what is the nationality of the beneficial owner, and should undertake within a limited time, after any change in the beneficial ownership, to communicate the new facts to the company. In default of compliance with the above, the shares should, at the option of the company, either (1) be liable to sale by the company and the holder be entitled only to the proceeds; or (2) be liable to forfeiture and the holder be entitled to receive payment from the company of 10 per cent. less than the market value of the share, or if there be no market value, then 10 per cent. less than the value at which the share would be taken for ad valorem stamp duty if it were the subject of transfer. In case the company made default in exercising its power, the Board of Trade should be authorised to require the above sale to be made.

(b) Every director, upon coming into office, should be required to make a declaration disclosing his nationality and stating whether in his office he is wholly free from the control or influence of any alien, and if he is not so free, stating by whose directions or under whose control or influence he is to act and what is the nationality of that person, and should undertake within a limited time after any change in that state of things to communicate the facts to the Board and procure a statement of the facts to be entered in the Board minutes. Any breach of these obligations to be visited with a penalty which should be severe.

(c) The company should be required to enter in the register of members, against the name of every registered member, his nationality as disclosed by the declaration. In the case where the registered member is not the beneficial owner, the company should be required to record, not in the register, but in another book, the nationality of the beneficial owner as disclosed by the declaration, and, as regards the latter book, to record the nationality of any new beneficial owner when and as disclosed by the registered member. These particulars should be required to be included in the annual list under Section 26 of the Act of 1908. That list would thus become not a list of members only, but a list of members with the addition of beneficial owners. The company should, further, be required to add to the annual list a summary of the result as regards nationality showing (1) as regards registered members, how many are British subjects and how many shares they hold, and how many are aliens and how many shares they hold, subdividing the number of the aliens and their holdings under their respective nationalities; and (2) as regards the registered members who are British subjects; (a) how many of them are the beneficial owners and how many shares they hold, and (b) as regards the rest, what are the nationalities and holdings of the beneficial owners.