One obvious solution was to limit shareholder liability. This, it was felt, could broaden and deepen the pockets of the investor base, freeing up bank capital and credit. The United States had been an early-adopter, with Connecticut and Massachusetts permitting limited liability from 1817. Neighbouring states had quickly followed suit. Although limited liability had existed in parts of Europe from the 17th century, it was only during the second half of the 19th century that its tentacles spread widely.4 In the UK, wholesale change came with the Limited Liability Act and Joint Stock Companies Acts of 1855 and 1856. Interestingly, banking was slow off the mark. Limited liability status was at first not taken up enthusiastically. Bankers appeared to prize unlimited liability. It served as a safety certificate  2  Cleary (1965), Collins (1988). 3  Turner (2009). 4  Hickson and Turner (2005). 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  for depositors, a badge of prudence. “A depositor would be much more likely to trust his money with a bank whose shareholders he knew must yield up to him the uttermost farthing”. This from the lips of a banking expert of the day.5 But unlimited liability in banking remained under attack. Walter Bagehot believed its risk benefits were illusory as many shareholders did not possess so much as the “uttermost farthing”. Bagehot believed unlimited liability generated its own incentive problem: the wealthy assumed too much risk for the control they could exercise, dissuading them from investing (Bagehot (1873)).

Due to unlimited liability, control rights were exercised by investors whose personal wealth was literally on the line. That generated potent incentives to be prudent with depositors’ money. Nowhere was this better illustrated than in the asset and liability make-up of the balance sheet. The market, amorphously but effectively, exercised discipline. It was given a helping hand by market-based prudential safeguards. Directors of a bank had the capacity to vet share transfers, excluding owners without sufficiently deep pockets to bear the risk. Shareholders also maintained their liability after the transfer of their shares. This put shareholders firmly on the hook, a hook they then used to hold in check managers. Managers monitored shareholders and shareholders managers. In this way, the 19th century banking model aligned risk-taking incentives. But the global environment was changing. During the first half of the 19th century, rich countries were becoming hungry for capital to finance investment in infrastructure, including railways. As long as capital in banks was restricted to a small number of unlimited liability partners, credit was constricted. In 1826, the 6-partner restriction on UK banks was lifted, allowing banks to operate as joint-stock companies. No longer was ownership and control vested in a single agent. But pressures were building to liberalise further. Unlimited liability became the next target. In the words of British parliamentarian William Clay, “unlimited liability has a tendency to deter persons of fortune, intelligence and respectability from becoming partners or managers”.3 Shareholder discipline was proving rather too effective as a brake on risk-taking.