Tuesday, May 11, 2010

How Much Do European Banks Stand to Lose?

The Greek government, especially, has provided social welfare benefits that it cannot afford. It has paid for them by borrowing money. Those who made the loans have now realized that they cannot be repaid...unless German and French taxpayers pay them back.

Why would northern European taxpayers be willing to pay back those who lent the funds to provide Greeks with general social welfare benefits? It is because it is their own banks that made many of those loans. The worry is that if the banks lose too much money on bad loans to Greece (and Portugal and Spain,) they will be unable to make loans to French and German households and firms. The result will be a return of the economy to recession.

What is the exposure of Euro area banks to these losses?

Daniel Gros and Thomas Mayer provide the following table:

Table 1: Exposure of euro area banks to government as % of capital and reserves, 2009
LoansSecurities Total
Central government
12
64
76
General government
52
77
129

What this means is that if all the European Union governments refused to pay any of their national debts, on the whole, the European banks would be insolvent. On the other hand, if they had just 29 percent more capital and reserves, they could take that massive loss.

More importantly, they point out that the public debs of Greece, Portugal and Spain make up only a small portion of total European public debt.

Fortunately, the public debt of the three countries most at risk (Greece, Portugal and Spain) amounts to only about 14% of all public debt in the Eurozone.

While it is possible that European banks hold a larger proportion of debt of the countries most at risk, these figures suggest that the European banking system could withstand a substantial write down of Greek debt. Let the Greeks default.

Because of the nature of capital regulation, any bank losses create the possibility of reduced lending--especially to business. Government regulation requires that when banks make loans to business they have more capital than when they instead hold "cash" or government bonds. If a bank suffers a loss, it has less capital. If the regulators press the bank to return to the amount required by regulation, then the simplest way is to reduce new loans to business, and either leave repaid funds on balance with the central bank, or else purchase government bonds (presumably from Germany, France, or the U.S.) This change in the bank's asset portfolio provides no additional capital for the bank, but by shifting to what the regulators consider less risky assets, the amount of capital required is reduced. The unfortunate side effect is that lending to business can be sharply reduced.

I think the solution is to suspend the capital requirements. The reason to have capital is to form a cushion against loss. When losses occur, capital and capital ratios should fall. As banks profit from their remaining good loans, they can and should gradually rebuild their capital and capital ratios.

The notion that governments should bail out those owing money to banks in order to prevent adverse consequences due to the operation of capital requirements is insane. Only slightly less insane is the prospect of the government bailing out banks so that capital regulations don't cause a contraction in lending to sound borrowers. The answer is to quit regulating capital in a way that has these undesirable consequences.

8 comments:

  1. IMO things like this bail out are done because politicians will pay more of the taxpayers money to avoid risk to their jobs than they or the taxpayers would spend to avoid risk in their own lives. This is because it is not their money.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. I'm glad you have recognized macroeconomic significance of capital ratios
    2. Regulation of capital requirements is not the whole story. Depositors, bondholders and shareholders are also taking capital ratios into account. This means that bank management will have a desired capital ratio even in the absence of regulatory requirements. When regulatory requirements are present, banks can have a stricter desired capital ratios. Fortunately lax LOLR policy can lower desired capital ratios.
    3. Some people might slightly misunderstand your post, as usually your are talking about monetary reserves, but here you are mentioning accounting reserves. Monetary reserves are an asset of commercial bank, but accounting reserve is a part of the equity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. why can't the banks just issue more shares to make up for their losses? It beats cutting back lending, lending is banks primary activity, no?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Issuing shares are a fine solution if someone will buy them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And if no one will buy them at a price greate than zero?

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a lot happening around, so one got to be very wise and careful with how we approach things. Right now, I am trading with OctaFX broker where I get plenty of help and guidance, as they have lovely educational setup plus daily market updates, it’s all ever easy and nice which helps me working out things beautifully and I am able to bring myself plenty of rewards too without any major trouble at all which really makes me love things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It’s hard to say where things are going to work out ahead, but we just need to be extremely wise and careful with how we go about with going things. I trade with TradeWiseFX and thanks to them, I am able to work out on top of my voice to do with zero spread, high leverage up to 1:500, over 80 instruments and much more, it’s all high class.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It’s hard to say where things are going to work out ahead, but we just need to be extremely wise and careful with how we go about with going things. I trade with TradeWiseFX and thanks to them, I am able to work out on top of my voice to do with zero spread, high leverage up to 1:500, over 80 instruments and much more, it’s all high class.

    ReplyDelete