Banking crises seem to occur more and more frequently. And the federal government keeps broadening its insurance of bank depositors. I suspect that these two trends are related.
Bloomberg reports that the Fed is backing off from a plan to require higher levels of bank capital, which was formulated in the wake of the March 2023 banking crisis. Instead, the government plans to address the fundamental problem in American banking by doing . . . nothing:
Wall Street banks are on the cusp of a sweeping regulatory victory after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaled officials would scale back plans to make them hold more capital.
The world’s most powerful central banker flatly told lawmakers Wednesday that the government’s plan was in for “broad and material changes,” and that a complete do-over was very possible. Powell’s comments appeared to catch even seasoned industry lobbyists off-guard and immediately threw into doubt a signature Biden-era regulatory effort.
Would a future President Trump revive the effort? Don’t count on it:
The political stakes are also high with November’s elections looming. A consolidation of power by Republicans, who have been generally receptive to the industry’s arguments, would further hamstring the effort.
As usual, the industry lobbyists have won. America’s banking system will continue to become increasingly dysfunctional, with more and more frequent banking crises.
PS. You might wonder why a libertarian like me favors higher capital requirements. Actually, I favor complete laissez-faire in banking, with no deposit insurance and no “too big to fail”. But if we do have government backstops for bank depositors, then banks will have an incentive to hold too little capital. When they collapse, taxpayers will be forced to bail out the depositors of failed banks.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 8 2024 at 10:09pm
The Fed should not be regulating banks; it runs the risk of the Fed doing something for or to banks that does not contribute to executing FIAT. Bank regulators should be independent.
oneeyedman
Mar 9 2024 at 7:19am
While Basel Endgame raises capital requirements, the primary purpose of endgame in mostly not about raising capital requirements. It is about increasing the risk sensitivity of capital requirements and aligning US rules with the Basel III standards. It uses a fair bit of complexity to do this, and it adds much of the capital requirements to the GSIBs which already have much higher capital requirements than other banks. In contrast, the banks that got in trouble last year have lower capital requirements and are much smaller. They do see their requirements go up under Endgame, although on average by less than the GSIBs.
Endgame isn’t motivated by the events of March of last year and wont do much to reduce the likelihood of them recurring. Capital isn’t fungible across firms. Therefore, to fix the vulnerabilities exposed last year through the mechanism of higher capital, requires increasing requirements at the firms that currently have lower requirements, the smaller firms. But that is not what is happening under Endgame.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 9 2024 at 9:55am
The vulnerability of SVB and others was not lack of capital it was investing in FIXED RATE long term assets. Commercial banks are in the business of bearing term transformation and credit risks. There is no reason to take on interest rate risk.
OneEyedMan
Mar 10 2024 at 2:12pm
Well, if they had more capital, their losses from interest rate movements wouldn’t have done them in. That’s why id
Scott Sumner
Mar 9 2024 at 11:08am
I agree that the smaller firms are the biggest problem. But SVB exposed the fact that some supposedly “small” banks were actually viewed as systemic risks.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 9 2024 at 5:44pm
SVB was “systemic” because its failure reveled the common risk of many banks of investing ST liabilities in fixed rate LT assets.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 10 2024 at 9:42am
SVB exposed the risk of banks using deposits to fund long term fixed rate assets. Apparently enough banks were making that mistake (and regulators were letting then get away with it!) for it to indeed BE systemic
bobster
Mar 10 2024 at 12:30am
Well the capital requirements counted treasuries as risk free, and now banks are sitting on huge losses.
More capital requirements are necessary but likely to be flawed
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 10 2024 at 9:39am
That was an unforgivable mistake, to ignore the risk of interest rate mismatch of deposits liabilities and long term fixed rate assets. How could intelligent regulators fail to notice that? That was source of the S&L crisis!
spencer
Mar 11 2024 at 10:01am
See: “Another Banking Crisis Was Predictable – Thomas Hoenig. March 18-19 WSJ 2023.
“The original sin was monetary policy”.
Comments are closed.