-
The Subsidy Reserve Act of 2015 could solve "too big to fail" and level the playing field for smaller banks by requiring the largest financial institutions to accumulate capital equal to the amount of the market subsidy they receive.
February 20 -
A new government report finds that the size of big bank subsidies falls in stable periods and increases in times of stress. That spells danger when the next crisis comes around, writes Independent Community Bankers of America chief Camden Fine.
August 1 -
Regulators are confused about whether to use capital buffers as a tool to stamp out "too big to fail" banks or as a cushion to protect the financial system from the next crisis. But the Dodd-Frank Act gives them a clear mandate: to eliminate market expectations of a government bailout.
February 4 -
A highly anticipated government report due to be released July 31 is expected to say big banks received less of a subsidy from the perception that they are "too big to fail." But it remains uncertain whether that would continue to be true in a future crisis or if market conditions change.
July 22
A House bill clocking in at a mere 341 words could accomplish what the unwieldy Dodd-Frank Act has failed to do: use market discipline to rightsize "too big to fail" banks. The legislation takes direct aim at the "financial benefits" of being "too big to fail."
The Subsidy Reserve Act now before Congress is not only compact, it is also simple, fair and designed to be easily implemented. After a thorough and public vetting process led by the Federal Reserve Board, it would bring into the open the financial benefits of being TBTF benefits the big banks claim to be nonexistent.
The subsidy reserve will accumulate indefinitely year over year. It may be returned to shareholders only in connection with the rightsizing of the TBTF firm, i.e., in connection with a divestiture, sale of assets, spin-off or other market-driven M&A event. As banks become overcapitalized, market discipline in the form of shareholders pressure to more efficiently deploy their capital will drive the bus, not the Fed.
But big banks are pushing back against the bill because they value complexity and opacity over simplicity. Complexity and opacity are the handmaidens of the implicit federal guarantee that forms the foundation of each TBTF bank.
It is, after all, to preserve opacity that the big banks seek to keep obscure financial instruments trading in the OTC market rather than on transparent exchanges. As long as trading remains in the shadows where information is proprietary, banks can set their own prices and make big scores at the expense of customers and other counterparties.
If the TBTF banks valued simplicity, they would not have an average 2,000 separate affiliates. Regulators would not have consigned the living wills of 11 banking behemoths to the graveyard last year, labeling them "
And if the TBTFs valued transparency, they would not have pushed through an extortionate
Measuring these financial benefits is the starting point for the Subsidy Reserve Act. But big banks and their supporters state that the TBTF subsidy has already been greatly reduced or eliminated, citing a 2014
There are several issues with the GAO study. The GAO was asked by two senators of opposite parties to study the "financial benefits" flowing to the TBTFs because of government support. For whatever reason (some suspect lobbying influence), the
But even the scaled-back GAO study is very much a
If, in fact, there are no financial benefits to being TBTF, then big banks have nothing to fear from HR 888. Why? Because the Fed, after a thoroughly transparent process calling on the best minds in government, academia and industry, will reach that conclusion itself. Let the chips and the facts fall where they may!
Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
While Alvarezs views may be of interest to some, the more compelling questions Warren should have asked are: "Has the Fed measured the financial benefits that the TBTF banks receive by shifting the risk of these activities onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayers? And if not, why not?" I suspect each TBTF has already made the calculation of the financial benefit it derives from conducting swaps in its federally insured bank.
Its time for follow-up hearings on these questions and on HR 888. As long as we allow the banks to hide their TBTF financial benefits, the statutes mandate will never be achieved.
Professor Cornelius Hurley is the director of the Boston University Center for Finance, Law & Policy. Follow him on Twitter at