Viewpoints | Jul 03,2021
Nov 4 , 2023
By Raghuram G. Rajan
While higher capital requirements can theoretically enhance stability by providing a cushion against losses and reducing the likelihood of bank runs, such requirements do not necessarily curb risk-taking, as evidenced by smaller banks engaging in risky commercial real estate lending. A certain level of capital requirement is necessary to prevent panic and loss. Still, regulators must find a balance in capital regulations to ensure safety without hindering financial activity, argues Raghuram G. Rajan, a professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, in this commentary provided by Project Syndicate (PS).
Partly in response to the banking failures of March 2023, US regulators now want to impose higher capital requirements on banks with over 100 billion dollars in assets. But this is a puzzling choice, considering that some of the most egregious risk-taking recently has been found among smaller banks.
Some of the proposed changes – such as requiring banks to include unrealised gains and losses from certain securities in their capital ratios – are overdue. By and large, however, CEOs of large banks are not pleased. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, for example, has blasted the proposal for stricter capital rules, warning that it could prompt lenders to pull back and thereby stymie economic growth. Before we dismiss such outbursts as self-serving “bankerspeak,” we should ponder the role that bank capital serves and whether regulators are moving in the right direction.
Long-term “patient” financing, such as equity, counts as bank capital. Unlike demand deposits, it does not have to be paid back in the short run.
If banks can be brought down by uninsured depositors rushing for the exit, is it not obvious that more capital means fewer runs, and thus a more stable banking system?
Unfortunately, the problem is more complicated than that. Yes, if we have two equally risky banks, one with more capital financing than the other, the one with more capital has a higher probability of survival. But we cannot assume that these two institutions will take the same risks, nor can we ignore the consequences of higher capital requirements for overall financial stability and the economy.
Obviously, more financing through capital issuance reduces run-prone borrowing (bank leverage). It also provides a loss-absorbing buffer; since banks’ losses will have to eat through capital before reaching depositors, banks can withstand small accidents. Supervisors will have time to react if they see bank capital eroding. With supervisors also demanding that banks hold capital in proportion to the risk of their activities, capital serves as a budget for risk-taking.
Because investments in bank capital are very sensitive to bank risk, a minimum capital requirement acts as a kind of entry ticket: only banks that can convince investors that they will not take undue risks can raise capital at a reasonable cost. And since banks typically generate capital through retained profits rather than new equity issuances, capital regulation allows profitable banks to grow while restraining loss-making banks. Finally, given its importance, the level of a bank’s book capital gives the public a way to gauge its performance.
These are all good reasons for regulators to insist that banks hold reasonable amounts of capital. Before the 2008 financial crisis, some banks operated with capital as low as two percent of assets, making them accidents waiting to happen. In contrast, big banks came through the March 2023 episode relatively unscathed, though other regulations clearly helped.
The question, then, is whether raising capital requirements is appropriate today.
We can immediately dismiss one rationale for doing so: capital gives a bank’s board (or the equity holders they represent) more skin in the game, thus a greater incentive to limit risk-taking. Anyone who has served on the board of a large bank knows that board members are entirely dependent on what they are fed by management. It is a pipe dream to think they will restrain a cowboy executive team. As the US Federal Reserve’s report on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) shows, sometimes even supervisors are unaware of the risks a bank is taking, or are unable to stop it when they see it.
Capital regulation often fails to limit a bank’s pursuit of tail risks that earn profits in good times. Those earnings will add to its capital and allow it to take more risks – at least until the bad times come.
Finally, as more capital gives bank management a longer leash, higher capital requirements may come with an offsetting cost. The farther off the reservation management goes, the greater the losses for investors before a run finally closes the bank.
Just think how much more value the SVB management team would have destroyed – with the connivance of the board and supervisors – if uninsured depositors had not pulled the plug on its inglorious reign by demanding their money. This is not to suggest that SVB’s uninsured depositors were an alert group of stakeholders. On the contrary, they had little idea of the risks that were building. But once they caught a whiff, the party was over.
Bank runs can also have a salutary effect if bank management, knowing the extreme penalty associated with excessive risk, manages prudently. Viewed in this light, the occasional depositor run is a feature of the system, not a bug to be eliminated by raising banks’ capital requirements. By effectively insuring all uninsured deposits after the March mini-crisis, the Fed and the US Department of the Treasury prevented a wider bank panic. But they also kept a lot of incompetent bank managers in place by turning uninsured depositors into passive onlookers – and, indeed, into capital.
While we do not want banks to be so thinly capitalised that small losses and accidents can precipitate panic and much larger losses, we also must recognise that, beyond a certain point, more capital can facilitate mismanagement. At the end of the day, higher requirements can make capital costlier, potentially inhibiting banks’ ability to finance growth – as Dimon warns. And if activity migrates to other institutions with lower capital requirements, the system will not have been made safer.
This risk is not merely hypothetical. A big problem facing US regulators today is that smaller banks picked up now-shaky commercial real estate lending that larger banks had avoided, owing to the latter group’s higher capital requirements. It remains to be seen how these smaller institutions will manage the coming loan losses.
Sensible regulation depends on knowing when a tool loses effectiveness and becomes counterproductive. More is not always better.
PUBLISHED ON
Nov 04,2023 [ VOL
24 , NO
1227]
Viewpoints | Jul 03,2021
Films Review | Nov 09,2019
Fortune News | Apr 09,2022
Life Matters | Dec 30,2023
Fortune News | Jan 30,2021
Viewpoints | May 14,2022
Fortune News | Mar 04,2023
Sunday with Eden | Jan 07,2022
Commentaries | Jan 15,2022
Commentaries | Apr 22,2022
Photo Gallery | 97298 Views | May 06,2019
Photo Gallery | 89521 Views | Apr 26,2019
My Opinion | 67348 Views | Aug 14,2021
Commentaries | 65814 Views | Oct 02,2021
Feb 24 , 2024 . By MUNIR SHEMSU
Abel Yeshitila, a real estate developer with a 12-year track record, finds himself unable to sell homes in his latest venture. Despite slash...
Feb 10 , 2024 . By MUNIR SHEMSU
In his last week's address to Parliament, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) painted a picture of an economy...
Jan 7 , 2024
In the realm of international finance and diplomacy, few cities hold the distinction that Addis Abeba doe...
Sep 30 , 2023 . By AKSAH ITALO
On a chilly morning outside Ke'Geberew Market, Yeshi Chane, a 35-year-old mother cradling her seven-month-old baby, stands amidst the throng...
Apr 27 , 2024
The Prosperity Party (PP) - Prosperitians - is charting a course through treacherous...
Apr 20 , 2024
In a departure from its traditionally opaque practices, the National Bank of Ethiopia...
Apr 13 , 2024
In the hushed corridors of the legislative house on Lorenzo Te'azaz Road (Arat Kilo)...
Apr 6 , 2024
In a rather unsettling turn of events, the state-owned Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (C...
Apr 28 , 2024
A dire situation unfolds across public universities, where students face the harsh re...
Apr 28 , 2024 . By MUNIR SHEMSU
A European business lobby in Ethiopia issued a scathing review of the tax system last...
Apr 28 , 2024
The Federal Supreme Court has recently ruled in the prolonged commercial dispute surr...
Apr 28 , 2024 . By MUNIR SHEMSU
Transport authorities placed blame on driving schools and vehicle inspection centres...