Banks & Interest Rates Archives - Page 39 of 62

September 17, 2013

Higher Bank Capital Requirements are Necessary but not Sufficient to Prevent the Next Crisis | naked capitalism

Bill Black explains why higher capital requirements for banks is only part of the solution. Capital is simply an accounting measure of Assets minus Liabilities and bankers are not above gaming this to their advantage.

….There were hundreds of Office of Thrift Supervision examiners whose opinions repeatedly proved vastly superior to the economists’ predictions during the S&L debacle. Akerlof and Romer concluded their 1993 article with these sentences in order to emphasize this message to their peers.

The S&L crisis, however, was also caused by misunderstanding. Neither the public nor economists foresaw that the [deregulation] of the 1980s were bound to produce looting. Nor, unaware of the concept, could they have known how serious it would be. Thus the regulators in the field who understood what was happening from the beginning found lukewarm support, at best, for their cause. Now we know better. If we learn from experience, history need not repeat itself. (Akerlof and Romer 1993: 60)

Larry and Janet: please listen to the regulators in the field. Please end Ben Bernanke’s practice of placing economists in charge of Fed supervision. The Fed’s economists are a major source of the Fed’s problems….. the solution needs to come from the people in the field. That is particularly true with regard to detecting systemic risks.

September 8, 2013

Vickers calls for doubling of bank capital levels | FT.com

“It is not very sensible to run a market economy on the basis of a banking system that is 33 times leveraged, let alone 40 or 50 times leveraged,” Sir John [Sir John Vickers, Oxford academic who chaired the Independent Commission on Banking] told the Financial Times. He believes the right number is closer to 10 times, equivalent to a 10 per cent ratio.

That is a lot higher than the 3 per cent (33 times leverage) required by Basel III and the 4.1% (CBA) to 4.5% (WBC) of the big four Australian banks.

September 5, 2013

Fed’s Fisher Slams Congress Over Fiscal Policy | WSJ

Rob Curran at WSJ reports on a speech by Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher:

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by financial-industry trade group the Dallas Estate Planning Council at the Dallas Country Club, Mr. Fisher said the central bank has done all it can to stimulate the U.S. economy. He said members of Congress–both Republicans and Democrats–have failed to do their part. Elected officials have “sold our children–and our grandchildren–down the river,” Mr. Fisher said. “We haven’t had a budget for five years; no one knows what their taxes are going to be; no one knows what spending is going to be.”

The Dallas Fed president has long maintained that the missing ingredient in the economic recovery is a sound fiscal policy.

via Fed’s Fisher Slams Congress Over Fiscal Policy – Real Time Economics – WSJ.

August 31, 2013

John Mauldin: Effect of the taper

The last two times the Fed has ended a period of quantitative easing, the air has come out of the market balloon. Has this coming move been so telegraphed that the reaction will be different than in the past, or will we see the same result? Want to bet your bonus on it? Or your retirement?

~ John Mauldin

See graph at Mauldin Economics

August 19, 2013

Bloated business of banking | The Australian

Adam Creighton discusses the likelihood of taxpayers being asked to bail out too-big-to-fail banks.

In Australia that probability is now 100 per cent. Standard & Poor’s, a ratings agency, gives Australia’s biggest four banks a AA rating explicitly because taxpayers will provide “extraordinary support” to their creditors in any crisis, an implicit guarantee worth more than one-quarter of the four’s annual profits.

Since 1995, the big four Australian banks’ assets, reflecting a global trend, have ballooned from 94 per cent of Australia’s national income to $2.86 trillion, or 190 per cent.

July 21, 2013

Finally, Bank Regulators Have Had Enough | ProPublica

Jesse Eisinger observes US bank reactions to efforts to raise their minimum capital requirements. Many argue that the new rules will harm their competiveness.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, raised the ominous specter that global rules are out of “harmonization” and that United States banks are now held to a higher standard.

“We have one part of the world at two times what the other part of the world is talking about,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any industry out there that would be comfortable with something like that in a long run.”

To rebut that, I bring in a banking expert: Jamie Dimon. This side of Mr. Dimon’s mouth has repeatedly boasted about what a competitive advantage JPMorgan’s “fortress balance sheet” is, how the bank was a port in the 2008 storm…….

By raising capital standards and installing tougher derivatives rules, regulators are helping banks that are too foolish (or rather, the top executives who are too narrowly self-interested in increasing their own compensation in the short term) to recognize their own interests.

Increasing bank capital requirements would lower their perceived risk and decrease their cost of capital, giving them an advantage over international rivals with less stringent standards.

July 11, 2013

US banks face tougher capital requirements

Yalman Onaran and Jesse Hamilton at Bloomberg report on a new joint proposal by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

The biggest U.S. banks, after years of building equity, may continue hoarding profits instead of boosting dividends as they face stricter capital rules than foreign competitors.

The eight largest firms, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS), would need to retain capital equal to at least 5 percent of assets, while their banking units would have to hold a minimum of 6 percent, U.S. regulators proposed yesterday. The international equivalent, ignoring the riskiness of assets, is 3 percent. The banks have until 2018 to fully comply.

The U.S. plan goes beyond rules approved by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis, which almost destroyed the financial system. The changes would make lenders fund more assets with capital that can absorb losses instead of using borrowed money. Bankers say this could trigger asset sales and hurt their ability to lend, hamstringing the nation’s economic recovery.

While the authors term the new regulations “harsh” on bankers and likely to freeze bank lending, existing lax capital requirements give bankers a free ride at the expense of the taxpayer. Their claims are baseless:

existing bank leverage is way too high for a stable financial system;
US banks are flush with funds, holding more than $1.8 trillion in excess reserves on deposit with the Fed and $2.6 trillion invested in Treasuries and quasi-government mortgage-backed securities, so talk of a lending freeze is farcical;
banks can function just as well with equity funding as with deposit funding;
higher capital ratios will make it cheaper for banks to raise additional capital as lower leverage will reduce the risk premium.

So why are bankers squealing so loudly? In a nutshell: bonuses. Higher capital requirements and no free ride at taxpayers’ expense would mean that shareholders claim a bigger slice of the pie, with less left over for management bonuses.

For a detailed rebuttal of bankers’ claims see Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig.

The big four Australian banks should take note. They currently maintain between 4.1% (CBA) and 4.5% (WBC) of capital against lending exposure. Raising the ratio to 6.0% would require 33% to 50% new capital.

July 10, 2013

Basel committee willing to rethink complex bank rules | FT.com

Brooke Masters reports:

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision said in a discussion paper released on Monday that it shares the concern of critics who believe the main measure of bank safety – the core tier one capital ratio – is too complicated and makes it difficult to compare banks.

Its own research shows banks are using wildly different models to calculate the risk-weighted assets that make up the denominator of the ratio, resulting in some institutions holding 40 per cent less capital against the same kinds of banking assets as their peers.

July 10, 2013

Making banks hold more capital is not going to wreck the economy

Mark Gongloff quotes Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute, authors of the recent book The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong With Banking And What To Do About It, from their point-by-point rebuttal of bankers arguments that they should not be required to hold more capital:

“Many banks, including most of the large banks in the United States, are not even using all the funding they obtain from depositors to make loans,” Admati and Hellwig write. “If banks do not make loans, therefore, the problem is not a lack of funds nor an inability to raise more funds for profitable loans, but rather the banks’ choices to focus on other investments instead.”

July 9, 2013

NYSE Euronext to Take Over Libor | WSJ.com

Libor, the scandal-tarred benchmark that underpins interest rates on trillions of dollars in financial contracts, is being sold to NYSE Euronext, NYX -0.78% the U.S.-based company that runs the New York Stock Exchange. The deal, designed to restore Libor’s international credibility, was announced Tuesday by a British government commission and the NYSE.

From DAVID ENRICH and CASSELL BRYAN-LOW.