Skip to content
Institute of Economic Affairs

Institute of Economic Affairs

Institute of Economic Affairs

Thursday April 15, 2021
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • rss
  • Institute of Economic Affairs
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • rss
  • Blog
  • Film
  • Coronavirus
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Brexit Unit
    • Int. Trade & Competition Unit
    • SMPC
    • Paragon Initiative
  • Media
    • Media Coverage
    • Press Releases
    • Media Enquiries
    • About IEA Comms
  • Students
    • Internships
    • Events and Conferences
    • Essay Competition
    • Student Resources
    • IEA Budget Challenge
    • Economics101
  • Events
    • Forthcoming Events
    • Past Events
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Donate Monthly
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us

How US and UK banking proposals threaten global growth and financial stability

Louise Bennetts
11 December 2013
Institute of Economic Affairs > Blog > Uncategorized
A protectionist push is underway in the world’s two leading financial services economies. This threatens to undermine not only the already-weak recovery, but perhaps more importantly the ability of the financial sector to address future crises without recourse to taxpayers.

The UK Parliament is still drafting its domestic ‘ring-fencing’ plan. The plan will force banks catering to retail consumers to separate retail and wholesale banking functions into individually capitalised units. Limitations will be placed on the movement of capital and liquidity among units; and the retail unit will be subject to heightened capital requirements. At this point the plan may well apply to only a handful of banks, resulting in a two-tier regulatory system.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States’ Federal Reserve issued a much criticised ‘foreign banking organization’ proposal, seeking to transform the corporate structure under which non-US banks carry out their US business, reversing decades of regulatory practice.

The proposals share a common theme – that policymakers believe the organisational or corporate structures of large banking groups, rather then the activities and risk profiles, are a threat to financial stability. Banks must therefore undertake costly restructuring exercises to mitigate the risk. Yet both proposals interfere with the ability of global banks to allocate capital and liquidity in a manner they deem to be most efficient. This may be an acceptable price to pay if the overall result were enhanced stability. However, trapping capital and liquidity in particular jurisdictions (as with the US proposal) or corporate entities (the UK plan) is likely to make large banks less resilient in times of crisis, not more.

The 2008 financial crisis would have been much worse had liquidity not flowed freely across borders. The danger of these proposals is that they limit the ability of private firms to deal with liquidity shortages before it becomes domestic taxpayers’ problem. Imposing costly and inflexible corporate restructuring reduces the funds available for recapitalisation, and makes banks more inefficient and less capable of speedy adjustments. It also makes foreign banks less likely to step outside of their domestic markets.

In the UK, the ring-fencing scheme is designed to give retail depositors added security, but it is unlikely to work in practice. If the wholesale unit were to fail, depositors would still flee. As the 2008 crisis showed, depositors run when a bank’s group share price drops, regardless of whether or not protection is given to retail depositors. It would be far better practice to avert a large bank failure in the first place by allowing the group to deploy funds in a way that serves the interests of the bank as a whole.

A probable effect of this growing capital protectionism will be a retreat by globally active banks to their home markets. Ironically, this will lead to more home market concentration and less global diversification, making banks in all countries more susceptible to failure.

Although the common goal – to protect domestic taxpayers – is a noble one, the proposals are unlikely to achieve it. Andrew Bailey, Deputy Governor of the UK’s Prudential Regulatory Authority, put it bluntly when he noted recently that since the crisis, ‘We have gone backwards’. And, as a recent McKinsey study noted, these initiatives could lead to a ‘balkanized structure that relies more heavily on domestic capital formation … [providing] too little financing for long-term investment’. With global capital flows having dropped by more than 60 per cent since 2008, the time to act is now.

Louise Bennetts is the co-author (with Arthur S. Long) of The New Autarky? How U.S. and UK Domestic and Foreign Banking Proposals Threaten Global Growth, published by the Cato Institute.

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS

Share this Story

previousThe economics of Christmas presents: how Michael Sandel gets beaten by his own straw manKristian Niemietz10 December 2013
nextScience Says So - politicians are exploiting our blind faith in the power of scienceJamie Whyte12 December 2013
latestEconomic TheoryCompetition and co-operation - a Catholic perspectivePhilip Booth14 April 2021
previous
Uncategorized

The economics of Christmas presents: how Michael Sandel gets beaten by his own straw man

10 December 2013
next
Uncategorized

Science Says So - politicians are exploiting our blind faith in the power of science

12 December 2013
latest
Economic Theory

Competition and co-operation - a Catholic perspective

11 December 2013
Institute of Economic Affairs
BE PART OF THE IEA TODAY
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch

NEWSLETTER SIGN UP

Privacy Policy
© Institute of Economic Affairs
REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE
×
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
Powered by CookieYes