To argue the opposite: The author suggests that other institutions (pensions, universities, etc.) bring investors together with savers. It's true, but not to

To argue the opposite: The author suggests that other institutions (pensions, universities, etc.) bring investors together with savers. It's true, but not to the same extent. Banks are primary. Drying up a majority of the way that it happens will have a drastic effect despite the fact that other ways exist. The author argues that corporations get 25% of their investment funds from their own profits and that could go to 75% if they stopped paying dividends. The problem is that still leaves a 25% gap there which is sizable. Not only that, but profits don't help firms who are just starting up. I'm not all doom and gloom about the economy (even today), but I don't think the importance of banks is understated. The author is essentially arguing that if we scraped the bottom of the barrel, we could probably replicate what banks do (bringing investors and savers together) to a certain percentage. That's true, but what if your work just started paying you 50%. It might be hard to meet your next month's bills.