Since the challenge to monetary theory by Gurley and Shaw in 1955, the " uniqueness" of commercial banks has been a live issue. In a recent contribution to the debate in this Journal, Guttentag and Lindsay aim to provide "the rationale that has been sought by defenders of the traditional view that commercial banks are 'unique' ever since the Gurley-Shaw challenge to this view" (Guttentag and Lindsay 1968, p. 991). In line with the analysis by Warren L. Smith (Smith 1959, pp. 535-38), Guttentag and Lindsay spell out the modus operandi by which commercial banks are endowed with a substantially greater capacity for varying the total volume of credit han nonbank intermediaries. Guttentag and Lindsay show that (1) fluctuations in the cash-reserve ratios of commercial banks have a significantly greater impact on the total financial system's credit volume than comparable fluctuations in ratios of nonbank intermediaries; and (2) this contrast persists even after taking into account the secular growth of nonbank intermediaries relative to banks. Given by Smith (Smith 1959, pp. 535-36) as well as by Guttentag and Lindsay, the explanation for these results is that nonbank intermediaries use bank deposits as their reserves. In what follows, I shall show that, although Guttentag and Lindsay have convincingly confirmed the higher credit multiplier of commercial banks, this confirmation either constitutes the uniqueness of commercial banks nor justifies the entire set of controls historically applied to commercial banks.