[jbs789]

This is not correct. For starters, loans are assets.

Banks start with some capital, borrow in the form of deposits, and lend in the form of bonds, mortgages etc.

The regulatory capital ratio determines how much capital they must hold to support the assets.

[eru]

> The regulatory capital ratio determines how much capital they must hold to support the assets.

That's one of the factors. But even in jurisdictions without regulations on capital ratio, banks tend to hold capital cushions.

The Scottish 'free banking' era in the 18th and 19th century is instructive here. (Canada had a similar arrangement.) In Scotland during that time banks regularly had about 2/3 deposits and 1/3 capital to finance their balance sheet, despite no fixed regulatory obligations on capital ratios.

Interestingly they barely held any reserves at all, perhaps 2% or less of assets.

These banks were extraordinarily solid and stable. And the arrangement contributed to Scotland's rapid catching up to England during their Industrial Revolutions.

[staplers]

  Loans are assets

-1 = 1

And people wonder why finite natural resources skyrocket in value.

[somewhereoutth]

The best way to understand a loan is as the right to a future income stream (principal repayments and interest). The original debtor (the person/entity taking out the loan) establishes the credibility of that future income stream (based on income, expected returns on a project, etc) and sells it to the lender (usually a bank) for cash up front. Thus the loan is an asset on the bank's balance sheet, that is generating returns (assuming all goes to plan). Banks can and usually do sell on that asset to other parties.

Conversely, when you deposit cash to a bank, you are actually creating a liability on the bank's balance sheet - as you might want your money back one day!

[littlestymaar]

For every debt there's a debtor and a debtee. For the first debt is a liability, while it's an asset for the second.