<p>In the UK in 2008, the government took majority stakes in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (two of the country’s four largest retail banks) to prevent their bankruptcy and the consequent collapse of the UK’s (and perhaps the world’s) financial system. It has since divested itself of Lloyds, but is still the majority owner of RBS.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T23:39:07.640Z
And from 1968-2003 Girobank was a government owned bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girobank
mmmmmm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T17:56:15.367Z
And the National Savings Bank, which was part of the Post Office (GPO) - from 1861 onwards, now NS&I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Savings_and_Investments Used to be a life saver before ATMs in NW Scotland, where Post Offices were a lot more numerous than bank branches!
user_1818839
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T12:10:54.297Z
2021-12-17T12:10:54.297Z
Mike Scott
<p>Some sort of government involvement is the norm. In the US, the FDIC and Federal Reserve Bank are central parts of the banking industry, and while they are in some sense &quot;independent&quot;, they aren't really private entities. Even private banks are highly regulated, with the government setting things such as reserve requirements, interchange limits, etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T23:55:49.613Z
2021-12-16T23:55:49.613Z
Acccumulation
<p>Yes in USSR all banks, like everything else was state owned. Although there is no much literature on it as the system was opaque. You can have look at <a href="https://books.google.nl/books?id=3DHrBwAAQBAJ&amp;source=gbs_book_other_versions" rel="noreferrer">Kuschpèta (1978)</a> for some exploration.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>why was it privatized?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because Soviet Union collapsed. Also retail banking is private service there is not much if any economic rationale for government ownership ideology aside.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-15T19:07:28.217Z
Are there any examples outside totalitarian regimes?
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-15T19:25:32.440Z
@Rubus there are some state owned banks in Venezuela (eg Banco Bicentenario) which is de jure democracy. US temporarily partially nationalized City group in 2009
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T11:06:41.387Z
Your reference to Kuschpèta (2012) is not easy to find
Bertrand
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T11:54:38.580Z
@Bertrand I added a link, but I am surprised it was hard to find its the first result if you put the name and date into google
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T12:04:15.410Z
@1muflon1: thanks for the link. Yes indeed it was also the 1st reference for me, but it seems that the book was edited in 1978.
Bertrand
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T12:34:57.127Z
@Bertrand oh, sorry I copied the name and date from the site and for some reason the link shows date 2012 which was just the last edition I fixed my reference in the text
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T13:04:14.410Z
@Rubus Can't you live a day without parroting Western propaganda?
Oleg V. Volkov
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T13:29:45.030Z
@OlegV.Volkov Questions are parroting propaganda? Interesting perspective...
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T14:01:12.770Z
@OlegV.Volkov  & Rubus for discussion unrelated to the question please open a chat room. As stated in the help center comments are for clarification purposes not for discussion of unrelated topics
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T15:20:07.487Z
Was there more than [one Soviet bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosbank)?
Henry
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T15:27:17.167Z
@Henry yes for example sberbank was created from savings banks created during perestrojka. Keep in mind that USSR existed for 69years. Economic policies were not constant during that time
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-15T18:58:49.953Z
2021-12-16T12:35:08.187Z
2021-12-16T12:35:08.187Z
1muflon1
<p>In France a number of banks were nationalized after the 1939-1945 war. by the law of <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_du_2_d%C3%A9cembre_1945_relative_%C3%A0_la_nationalisation_de_la_Banque_de_France_et_des_grandes_banques_et_%C3%A0_l%27organisation_du_cr%C3%A9dit" rel="noreferrer">December 2, 1945</a>. In short, that law first nationalized the <em>Banque de France</em> and gave it the monopolistic privilege of emission of money, and then nationalized a number of major banks:</p>
<ul>
<li>Banque Nationale du Commerce et de l'Industrie and Comptoir National d'Escompte de Paris which later became the Banque Nationale de Paris</li>
<li>Credit Lyonnais</li>
<li>Société Générale</li>
</ul>
<p>The rationale behind those nationalizations was that the National Council of Resistance (Conseil National de la Resistance) (among its members was the French Communist Party...) wanted to be able to control the financing the economic recovery.</p>
<p>Later, when François Mitterand was elected in 1981, a number of other banks are again nationalized (<a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_de_nationalisation_du_13_f%C3%A9vrier_1982" rel="noreferrer">ref</a>). Here again the rationale was that the <em>left</em> parties (French Communist Party and French Socialist Party) did not trust private banks to support their politics.</p>
<p>When the <em>right</em> parties winned the elections in 1986, some banks are privatized back: Paribas, CCF, Société Générale (<a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisations_sous_le_gouvernement_de_Jacques_Chirac_(1986-1988)%5D" rel="noreferrer">ref</a>). Here the rationale is just that economy should not be part of the <em>sovereign domain</em>, and that the government was in need of fresh money. The last major banks will be privatized later: BNP 1993 and Credit Lyonnais 1999.</p>
<p>My opinion:</p>
<p>All this only shows that the <em>left</em> parties (communist and socialist parties) do not trust private capitals to support their politics, while the <em>right</em> parties (RPR, UMP, LR) prefers banks to be given to private economics.</p>
<p>I could not find any evidence that either way was better for the national economy. The only values I could find is that the whole nationalization of 1982 costed around 50 billion francs and that when they were later privatized backs the government received more (between 65 and 100 billion francs depending on sources), so being nationalized were not that bad for those  companies... (<a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisations_en_France" rel="noreferrer">ref</a>) - it should be noted that this values contains more than banks.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T16:45:49.220Z
2021-12-17T08:13:13.600Z
2021-12-17T08:13:13.600Z
Serge Ballesta
<p>Currently in Sweden the bank SBAB, web page sbab.se , is fully owned by the Swedish state.</p>
<p>For a period, after the 1990 bank crisis, the bank Nordbanken was state controlled ( as alternative to going bancrupt ) for a while but not anymore.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-15T20:22:51.480Z
2021-12-15T20:22:51.480Z
ghellquist
<p>In Portugal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caixa_Geral_de_Dep%C3%B3sitos" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Caixa Geral de Depósitos</a>, is state owned bank.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T11:40:52.017Z
2021-12-17T11:40:52.017Z
csilvia
<p>In Argentina, besides many private banks, there is a federally owned bank (<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_Argentina" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Banco de la Nación Argentina</a>, the largest in the country) and several provincially owned banks (among them, <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_Province_of_Buenos_Aires" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Banco de la Provincia de Buenos Aires</a>, <a href="https://www.bancor.com.ar/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Banco de la Provincia de Córdoba</a>, <a href="https://www.bpn.com.ar/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Banco Provincia Neuquén</a>,   <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_City_of_Buenos_Aires" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Banco de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires</a>; this last one is technically municipal).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T13:01:28.757Z
2021-12-18T13:01:28.757Z
Martin Argerami
<p>Yes. An important and currently highly relevant example is India.</p>
<p>In 1969, the Government of India issued the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which nationalised the 14 largest private-sector banks of India, which contained about 85% of the bank deposits in the country. In 1980, 6 more banks were nationalised. After that, several mergers have taken place among these state-owned banks (see <a href="https://www.bankbazaar.com/ifsc/list-of-merged-public-sector-banks-in-india-2021.html" rel="noreferrer">this</a> for reference). See <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector_banks_in_India" rel="noreferrer">this</a> for a list of public sector banks of different kinds in India.</p>
<p>Several reasons were listed for this move: expanding the reach of banking to regions where the private sector would not want to go, removing regional imbalance; prioritising certain sectors deemed crucial for the country's economic growth and the welfare of the people; controlling private monopolies etc. Before the move, the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi had released the paper, &quot;Stray thoughts on Bank Nationalisation&quot;, expressing her views (see <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scroll.in/article/930982/july-19-1969-fifty-years-ago-india-nationalised-14-private-banks-this-is-how-it-was-done" rel="noreferrer">this</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/before-the-ten-days-that-shook-india/article24187536.ece/amp/" rel="noreferrer">this</a>). <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_inclusion" rel="noreferrer">Financial inclusion</a> of the poor was seen as an important goal, as they were (and to an extent still are) un-banked/ under-banked and have to pay extraordinarily high interest to traditional <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/economy/how-better-institutional-credit-is-shielding-poor-from-moneylenders-in-rural-india/742629/%3famp" rel="noreferrer">moneylenders</a>. Abhijeet Banerjee and Esther Duflo provide a nice description of the poor in India borrowing in their book, Poor Economics.</p>
<p>In 2015, public banks had 74.28% of the market share in loans in India, which reduced to 59.8% in 2020 (see <a href="https://www.theprint.in/economy/in-just-5-years-private-banks-have-narrowed-public-sectors-huge-lead-in-loans-deposits/550570/%3famp" rel="noreferrer">here</a>). Thus, the public sector banks still largely dominate the banking sector in India.</p>
<p>But over time, several issues with public sector banks have come to surface: they face losses in rural India (which is perhaps the reason private banks didn't go to those places, which prompted Mrs. Gandhi to nationalise), large over-dues due to lending to certain sectors and demographics, worrying shares of non-performing assets etc. (see <a href="https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/banks/nationalized-banks/9-major-problems-faced-by-indias-nationalized-banks/12927" rel="noreferrer">here</a>). Furthermore, there is a lack of competition and exposure to large corporates more than the private banks have. This is not to say that private banks aren't facing problems: large private banks like ICICI, Yes Bank and HDFC have seen problems very recently.</p>
<p>In the last few years, the Indian government has expressed its desire to privatise many of the banks, due to the stated problems. The government intends to introduce the Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 in the ongoing winter session of the parliament (see <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/industry/banking-finance/bank-privatisation-potential-candidates-yet-to-be-chosen-says-finance-minister/2387956/lite/" rel="noreferrer">here</a>). As I write this answer, 900,000 employees of public-sector banks are on strike nationwide (for 16 and 17 December, 2021), opposing the move to privatise banks (see <a href="https://www.aajtak.in/business/utility/story/bank-strike-dec-2021-2-2-days-privatisation-banking-to-be-closed-on-10-days-in-this-month-tuts-1374332-2021-12-16" rel="noreferrer">here</a> and <a href="https://www.outlookindia.com/website/amp/business-news-bank-strike-today-and-tomorrow-know-the-key-reason-and-its-impact/405284" rel="noreferrer">here</a>). Among many other reasons, they fear that privatisation will lead to a loss of banking jobs, as private entities would try to cut costs (see <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/business/privatisation-to-result-in-loss-of-bank-jobs/article37955794.ece/amp/" rel="noreferrer">here</a>).</p>
<p>The government has not yet introduced the bill, but is expected to do it soon in the ongoing session of the parliament.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-16T05:07:39.047Z
2021-12-16T05:28:03.973Z
2021-12-16T05:28:03.973Z
Ishan Kashyap Hazarika
<p>Today most banking is private. Has there been any period in history where banking was (in part) state-owned and why was it privatized?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T14:29:08.707Z
"Banking" is an overly generic word and the assertion that most banking is private doesn't hold for all types of banking. E.g. [reserve banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank) is generally a component of the state. Other types such as [retail banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_banking), [commercial banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank), and [investment banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_banking) have different historical mixes of private/state and you should probably specify what you mean by banking in order to get the right answers.
JBentley
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T14:33:30.660Z
I'm not interested in reserve banking..What would be the correct umbrella term? non - reserve banking?
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T15:52:14.003Z
North Dakota (USA) has a state bank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota
Matt
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T11:33:47.543Z
If "today most banking is private", then by definition there is currently state-owned banking
OrangeDog
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T12:08:12.870Z
@OrangeDog That's true..The question aims to find an answer to the question if state or private owned banks are more beneficial to economy..(as indicated by the second part of the question)
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T17:02:39.470Z
@Rubus that's not what the second part indicates at all. If you want to know if state or private is better for the economy, then you should actually ask that question.
OrangeDog
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T21:52:49.933Z
@OrangeDog Ok your right..I think I asked it in this manner since I wanted to include the possibility that it could have been privatized due to potential power grab by bankers, as often portrayed in by left leaning media. Since the question is relatively well received I leave it as it is...
CuriousIndeed
<reference-request><banking>
Are there examples of state banks in history?
CuriousIndeed
# Are there examples of state banks in history?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-15)

Today most banking is private. Has there been any period in history where banking was (in part) state-owned and why was it privatized?

**Tags:** reference-request, banking

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "Banking" is an overly generic word and the assertion that most banking is private doesn't hold for all types of banking. E.g. [reserve banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank) is generally a component of the state. Other types such as [retail banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_banking), [commercial banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank), and [investment banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_banking) have different historical mixes of private/state and you should probably specify what you mean by banking in order to get the right answers.  
> **username_0**: I'm not interested in reserve banking..What would be the correct umbrella term? non - reserve banking?  
> **username_2**: North Dakota (USA) has a state bank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota  
> **username_3**: If "today most banking is private", then by definition there is currently state-owned banking  
> **username_0**: @username_3 That's true..The question aims to find an answer to the question if state or private owned banks are more beneficial to economy..(as indicated by the second part of the question)  
> **username_3**: @Rubus that's not what the second part indicates at all. If you want to know if state or private is better for the economy, then you should actually ask that question.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Ok your right..I think I asked it in this manner since I wanted to include the possibility that it could have been privatized due to potential power grab by bankers, as often portrayed in by left leaning media. Since the question is relatively well received I leave it as it is...  

---

## 8 answers

### Answer by username_16 on 2021-12-16. Score: 21 | Accepted answer

Yes. An important and currently highly relevant example is India.

In 1969, the Government of India issued the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which nationalised the 14 largest private-sector banks of India, which contained about 85% of the bank deposits in the country. In 1980, 6 more banks were nationalised. After that, several mergers have taken place among these state-owned banks (see [this](https://www.bankbazaar.com/ifsc/list-of-merged-public-sector-banks-in-india-2021.html) for reference). See [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector_banks_in_India) for a list of public sector banks of different kinds in India.

Several reasons were listed for this move: expanding the reach of banking to regions where the private sector would not want to go, removing regional imbalance; prioritising certain sectors deemed crucial for the country's economic growth and the welfare of the people; controlling private monopolies etc. Before the move, the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi had released the paper, "Stray thoughts on Bank Nationalisation", expressing her views (see [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scroll.in/article/930982/july-19-1969-fifty-years-ago-india-nationalised-14-private-banks-this-is-how-it-was-done) and [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/before-the-ten-days-that-shook-india/article24187536.ece/amp/)). [Financial inclusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_inclusion) of the poor was seen as an important goal, as they were (and to an extent still are) un-banked/ under-banked and have to pay extraordinarily high interest to traditional [moneylenders](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/economy/how-better-institutional-credit-is-shielding-poor-from-moneylenders-in-rural-india/742629/%3famp). Abhijeet Banerjee and Esther Duflo provide a nice description of the poor in India borrowing in their book, Poor Economics.

In 2015, public banks had 74.28% of the market share in loans in India, which reduced to 59.8% in 2020 (see [here](https://www.theprint.in/economy/in-just-5-years-private-banks-have-narrowed-public-sectors-huge-lead-in-loans-deposits/550570/%3famp)). Thus, the public sector banks still largely dominate the banking sector in India.

But over time, several issues with public sector banks have come to surface: they face losses in rural India (which is perhaps the reason private banks didn't go to those places, which prompted Mrs. Gandhi to nationalise), large over-dues due to lending to certain sectors and demographics, worrying shares of non-performing assets etc. (see [here](https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/banks/nationalized-banks/9-major-problems-faced-by-indias-nationalized-banks/12927)). Furthermore, there is a lack of competition and exposure to large corporates more than the private banks have. This is not to say that private banks aren't facing problems: large private banks like ICICI, Yes Bank and HDFC have seen problems very recently.

In the last few years, the Indian government has expressed its desire to privatise many of the banks, due to the stated problems. The government intends to introduce the Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 in the ongoing winter session of the parliament (see [here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/industry/banking-finance/bank-privatisation-potential-candidates-yet-to-be-chosen-says-finance-minister/2387956/lite/)). As I write this answer, 900,000 employees of public-sector banks are on strike nationwide (for 16 and 17 December, 2021), opposing the move to privatise banks (see [here](https://www.aajtak.in/business/utility/story/bank-strike-dec-2021-2-2-days-privatisation-banking-to-be-closed-on-10-days-in-this-month-tuts-1374332-2021-12-16) and [here](https://www.outlookindia.com/website/amp/business-news-bank-strike-today-and-tomorrow-know-the-key-reason-and-its-impact/405284)). Among many other reasons, they fear that privatisation will lead to a loss of banking jobs, as private entities would try to cut costs (see [here](https://www.thehindu.com/business/privatisation-to-result-in-loss-of-bank-jobs/article37955794.ece/amp/)).

The government has not yet introduced the bill, but is expected to do it soon in the ongoing session of the parliament.


---

### Answer by username_12 on 2021-12-16. Score: 11

In France a number of banks were nationalized after the 1939-1945 war. by the law of [December 2, 1945](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_du_2_d%C3%A9cembre_1945_relative_%C3%A0_la_nationalisation_de_la_Banque_de_France_et_des_grandes_banques_et_%C3%A0_l%27organisation_du_cr%C3%A9dit). In short, that law first nationalized the *Banque de France* and gave it the monopolistic privilege of emission of money, and then nationalized a number of major banks:

* Banque Nationale du Commerce et de l'Industrie and Comptoir National d'Escompte de Paris which later became the Banque Nationale de Paris
* Credit Lyonnais
* Société Générale

The rationale behind those nationalizations was that the National Council of Resistance (Conseil National de la Resistance) (among its members was the French Communist Party...) wanted to be able to control the financing the economic recovery.

Later, when François Mitterand was elected in 1981, a number of other banks are again nationalized ([ref](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_de_nationalisation_du_13_f%C3%A9vrier_1982)). Here again the rationale was that the *left* parties (French Communist Party and French Socialist Party) did not trust private banks to support their politics.

When the *right* parties winned the elections in 1986, some banks are privatized back: Paribas, CCF, Société Générale ([ref](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisations_sous_le_gouvernement_de_Jacques_Chirac_(1986-1988)%5D)). Here the rationale is just that economy should not be part of the *sovereign domain*, and that the government was in need of fresh money. The last major banks will be privatized later: BNP 1993 and Credit Lyonnais 1999.

My opinion:

All this only shows that the *left* parties (communist and socialist parties) do not trust private capitals to support their politics, while the *right* parties (RPR, UMP, LR) prefers banks to be given to private economics.

I could not find any evidence that either way was better for the national economy. The only values I could find is that the whole nationalization of 1982 costed around 50 billion francs and that when they were later privatized backs the government received more (between 65 and 100 billion francs depending on sources), so being nationalized were not that bad for those companies... ([ref](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisations_en_France)) - it should be noted that this values contains more than banks.


---

### Answer by username_13 on 2021-12-15. Score: 10

Currently in Sweden the bank SBAB, web page sbab.se , is fully owned by the Swedish state.

For a period, after the 1990 bank crisis, the bank Nordbanken was state controlled ( as alternative to going bancrupt ) for a while but not anymore.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-12-17. Score: 6

In the UK in 2008, the government took majority stakes in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (two of the country’s four largest retail banks) to prevent their bankruptcy and the consequent collapse of the UK’s (and perhaps the world’s) financial system. It has since divested itself of Lloyds, but is still the majority owner of RBS.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: And from 1968-2003 Girobank was a government owned bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girobank  
> **username_6**: And the National Savings Bank, which was part of the Post Office (GPO) - from 1861 onwards, now NS&I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Savings_and_Investments Used to be a life saver before ATMs in NW Scotland, where Post Offices were a lot more numerous than bank branches!  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2021-12-16. Score: 6

Some sort of government involvement is the norm. In the US, the FDIC and Federal Reserve Bank are central parts of the banking industry, and while they are in some sense "independent", they aren't really private entities. Even private banks are highly regulated, with the government setting things such as reserve requirements, interchange limits, etc.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2021-12-15. Score: 6

Yes in USSR all banks, like everything else was state owned. Although there is no much literature on it as the system was opaque. You can have look at [Kuschpèta (1978)](https://books.google.nl/books?id=3DHrBwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions) for some exploration.

> why was it privatized?

Because Soviet Union collapsed. Also retail banking is private service there is not much if any economic rationale for government ownership ideology aside.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Are there any examples outside totalitarian regimes?  
> **username_8**: @Rubus there are some state owned banks in Venezuela (eg Banco Bicentenario) which is de jure democracy. US temporarily partially nationalized City group in 2009  
> **username_9**: Your reference to Kuschpèta (2012) is not easy to find  
> **username_8**: @username_9 I added a link, but I am surprised it was hard to find its the first result if you put the name and date into google  
> **username_9**: @username_8: thanks for the link. Yes indeed it was also the 1st reference for me, but it seems that the book was edited in 1978.  
> **username_8**: @username_9 oh, sorry I copied the name and date from the site and for some reason the link shows date 2012 which was just the last edition I fixed my reference in the text  
> **username_10**: @Rubus Can't you live a day without parroting Western propaganda?  
> **username_0**: @username_10 Questions are parroting propaganda? Interesting perspective...  
> **username_8**: @username_10  & Rubus for discussion unrelated to the question please open a chat room. As stated in the help center comments are for clarification purposes not for discussion of unrelated topics  
> **username_11**: Was there more than [one Soviet bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosbank)?  
> **username_8**: @username_11 yes for example sberbank was created from savings banks created during perestrojka. Keep in mind that USSR existed for 69years. Economic policies were not constant during that time  

---

### Answer by username_14 on 2021-12-17. Score: 4

In Portugal [Caixa Geral de Depósitos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caixa_Geral_de_Dep%C3%B3sitos), is state owned bank.


---

### Answer by username_15 on 2021-12-18. Score: 3

In Argentina, besides many private banks, there is a federally owned bank ([Banco de la Nación Argentina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_Argentina), the largest in the country) and several provincially owned banks (among them, [Banco de la Provincia de Buenos Aires](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_Province_of_Buenos_Aires), [Banco de la Provincia de Córdoba](https://www.bancor.com.ar/), [Banco Provincia Neuquén](https://www.bpn.com.ar/), [Banco de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_City_of_Buenos_Aires); this last one is technically municipal).


---

