Recently, a flurry of bankruptcies among non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) in the USA has drawn attention to the risks associated with alternative credit channels in the shadow-banking sector – lending which is not financed with deposits. There is concern that this could be the start of a wave of bankruptcies among such NBFIs, especially given concerns about a potential downswing in the economic cycle – a time when defaults are more likely.
While providing alternative sources of funding, the opacity of lending in the shadow-banking sector means it is not clear what risks NBFIs face themselves and, more significantly, what risks they pose to the financial system as a whole. There is particular concern about the impact on regulated banks.
Already, JP Morgan Chase in its third quarter earnings report announced a $170m charge stemming from the bankruptcy of Tricolor, which specialised in sub-prime car financing. Mid-sized banks, Western Alliance and Zions Bancorp, have reported losses from loans to a group of distressed real estate funds. This has highlighted the interconnectedness between NBFIs and regulated banking, and the potential for problems in the shadow-banking sector to have a direct impact on mainstream banks.
In this blog, we will trace the secular trends in the financial systems of more advanced economies which have given rise to alternative credit channels and, in turn, to potential banking crises. We will explain the relationship between regulated banks and shadow banks, analysing the risks involved, the potential impact on the financial system and the policy implications.
What are the secular trends in banking?
The traditional model of commercial banking involved taking deposits and using them to finance loans to households and firms. However, cycles of banking crises, regulatory changes and financial innovation over the past 50 years produced new models.
First, banks diversified away from direct lending to providing other banking services – on-balance sheet activities, such as investing in financial securities, and off-balance sheet activities, such as acting as agents in the sale of financial securities.
Second, alternative credit channels based on financial markets have grown in significance.
In the 1980s, international regulations around traditional banking activities – taking deposits and making loans – were being formalised by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) under what became known as the Basel framework (see, for example, Economics section 18.2 or Economics for Business section 28.2). For the first time, this stipulated liquidity and capital requirements for international banks relating to their traditional lending activities. However, at the same time the deregulation of financial markets and financial innovation provided banks with opportunities to derive revenues from a range of other financial services.
After the financial crisis, liquidity and capital requirements for banks were tightened further through the Basel III regulations. Commercial banks had to have even higher levels of capital as a buffer for bad debts associated with direct lending. A higher level of capital to cover potential losses increases the marginal cost of lending, since each pound of additional loan requires additional capital. This reduced the marginal return, and consequently, the incentive to lend directly.
These regulatory developments created an incentive to pursue activities which do not require as much capital, since their marginal cost is lower and potential return is higher. Consequently, banks have placed less emphasis on lending and more on purchasing short-term and long-term financial securities and generating non-interest income from off-balance sheet activities. For instance, research by the Bank of England found that during the 1980s, interest income accounted for more than two-thirds of total income for large international banks. In contemporary times, non-interest income tends to be greater than interest income. Figure 1 illustrates the declining proportion of total assets represented by commercial and consumer loans for all regulated US banks. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
With banks originating less lending, activity has migrated to different avenues in the shadow-banking sector. This sector has always existed, but deregulation and financial innovation created opportunities for the growth of shadow banking – lending which is not financed with deposits. Traditionally, non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), such as pension funds, hedge funds and insurance companies, use funds from investors to buy securities through financial markets. However, new types of NBFIs have emerged which originate loans themselves, notably private credit institutions. As Figure 2 illustrates, a lot of the expansion in the activities of NBFIs has been the due to increased lending by these institutions (defined as ‘other financial institutions (OFIs)). Note that the NBFI line includes OFIs. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Since, NBFIs operate outside conventional regulatory frameworks, their credit intermediation and maturity transformation are not subject to the same capital requirements or oversight that banks are. As a result, they do not need to have the same level of capital to insulate against loan losses. Therefore, lending in the shadow-banking sector has a lower marginal cost compared to equivalent lending in the banking sector. Consequently, it generates a higher rate of return. This can explain the large growth in the assets of OFIs illustrated in Figure 2.
Risks in shadow banking
Banking involves trade-offs and this is the case whether the activities happen in the regulated or shadow-banking sector. Increasing lending increases profitability. But as lending continues to increase, at some point the risk-return profile becomes less favourable since institutions are lending to increasingly higher-risk borrowers and for higher-risk projects.
In downturns, when rates of defaults rise, such risks become apparent. Borrowers fail and default, causing significant loan losses for lenders. With lower levels of capital, NBFIs will have a lower buffer to insulate investors from these losses, increasing the likelihood of default.
Is this a problem? Well, for a long-time regulators thought not. It was thought that failures in the shadow-banking sector would have no implications for deposit-holders in regulated banks and the payments mechanism. Unfortunately, current developments in the USA have highlighted that this is unlikely to be the case.
The connections between regulated and shadow banking
The financial system is highly interconnected, and each successive financial crisis has shown that systemic risks lurk in obscure places. On the face of it, NBFIs appear separate from regulated banks. But banks’ new business models have not removed them from the lending channel, merely changed their role. Short-term financing used to be conducted and funded by banks. Now, it is conducted by NBFIs, but still financed by banks. Long-term loan financing is no longer on banks’ balance sheets. However, while the lending is conducted by NBFIs, it is largely funded by banks.
NBFIs cannot be repositories of liquidity. Since they do not have deposits and are not part of the payments system, they have no access to official liquidity backstops. So, they do so indirectly by using deposit-taking banks as liquidity insurance. Banks provide this liquidity in a variety of ways:
- Investing in the securities issued by private capital funds;
- Providing bridge financing to credit managers to securitise credit card receivables;
- Providing prime broker financing to a hedge fund engaged in proprietary trading.
Furthermore, banks have increasingly made loans to NBFIs. Data for US commercial banks lending to the shadow-banking sector are publicly available only since 2015. But, as Figure 3 illustrates, it has seen a steady upward trend with a surge in activity in 2025. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Banks had an incentive to diversify into these activities since they are a source of revenue requiring less regulatory capital. The model requires risk and return to follow capital out of the banking system into the shadow-banking sector. However, while risky capital and its associated expected return have moved in the shadow-banking system, not all of the liquidity and credit default risk may have done so. Ultimately, some of that risk may be borne by the deposit-holders of the banks.
This is not an issue if banks are fully aware of the risks. However, problems arise when banks do not know the full risks they are taking.
There are reasons why this may be the case. Credit markets involve significant asymmetric information between lenders and borrowers. This creates conditions for the classic problems of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Moral hazard is a hidden action problem, whereby borrowers take greater risks because they share the possible downside losses with the lender. Adverse selection is the hidden information problem, whereby lenders do not have full information about the riskiness of borrowers or their activities.
The economics of information suggests that banks exploit scale, scope and learning economies to overcome the costs associated with asymmetric information in lending. However, that applies to direct lending when banks have full information about credit default risk on their loan book. When banks finance lending indirectly through NBFIs, there is an extension of the intermediation chain, and while banks may know the NBFIs, they will have much less information about the risks associated with the lending they are ‘underwriting’. This heightens their problems of asymmetric information associated with credit default risk.
What are the risks at present?
The level of debt in the global economy is at unprecedented levels. Data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that it rose to $351 trillion dollars in 2024, approximately 235% of weighted global gross domestic product (GDP). It is in this environment that private credit channels through NBFIs have been expanding. With this, it is more likely that NBFIs’ trade-off between credit risk and return has tilted greatly in favour of the former. Some point to the recent collapse of Tricolor and First Brands – both intermediary financing companies funded by private credit – as evidence of elevated levels of risk.
Many are pointing out that the failures observed in the USA so far have a whiff of fraud associated with them, with suggestions of multiple loans being secured against the same working capital. However, such behaviour is symptomatic of ‘late-cycle’ lending, where the incentive to squeeze more profit from lending in a more competitive environment leads to short-cuts – short-cuts that banks, at one stage removed along the intermediation chain, will have less information about.
It is in a downturn that such risks become apparent. Widening credit spreads and the reduced availability of credit causes financial stress for higher-risk borrowers. Inevitably, that higher risk will lead to higher defaults, more provision for loan losses and write-downs in the value of loan assets.
While investors in NBFIs are first in line to bear the losses, they are not the only ones exposed. At moments of stress, the credit lines that banks have provided get drawn and that increases the exposure of banks to the risks associated with NBFIs and whoever they have lent to. As NBFIs fail, the financing provided by banks will not be repaid and they will thus have to absorb losses associated with the lending of the NBFIs. So, while it appears that risk has left the banking system, it hasn’t. Ultimately, the liquidity and credit default risk of the non-bank sector is financed by bank deposits.
Furthermore, the opaqueness of the exposure of banks to risks in the shadow-banking sector may have issues for the wider financial system. In 2008, banks became wary of lending to each other during the financial crisis because they didn’t know the exposure of counterparty institutions to losses from securitised debt instruments. Now, as more and more banks reveal exposures to NBFIs, concerns about the unknown position of other banks may produce a repeat of the credit crunch which occurred then. A seizing up of credit markets will worsen any downturn. However, unlike 2008, the financial resources available to central banks and governments to deal with any consequences are severely limited.
Only time and the path of the US economy will reveal the extent of any contagion related to lending in the shadow-banking sector. However, central banks are already worried about the risks associated with the shadow-banking sector and have been taking steps to identify and ameliorate them. Events in the USA over the past few weeks may accelerate the process and bring more of that lending within the regulatory cordon.
Articles
- Bank chief says US firm collapses ring ‘alarm bells’
BBC News, Michael Sheils McNamee (21/10/25)
- BoE finds non-bank financial firms pose wider risks in crisis periods
Reuters, Lawrence White (2/12/24)
- Global Debt Remains Above 235% of World GDP
IMF Blogs, Vitor Gaspar, Carlos Eduardo Goncalves and Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro (17/9/25)
- IMF sounds alarm about high global public debt, urges countries to build buffers
Reuters, Andrea Shalal (15/10/25)
- Major international banks performance 1980-91
Quarterly Bulletin 1992 Q3, Bank of England (1/9/92)
- Shadow Banking System: Definition, Examples, and How It Works
Investopedia, Michael Bromberg (18/10/24)
- What is private credit, and should we be worried by the collapse of US firms?
The Guardian, Kalyeena Makortoff (18/10/25)
Academic paper
Data
Questions
- Explain why the need to hold more capital raises its cost for banks.
- Why does this reduce the lending they undertake?
- What is the attraction of ‘off-balance sheet transactions’ for regulated banks?
- Analyse the asymmetric information that banks face when providing liquidity to non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs).
- Examine the dangers for the financial system associated with regulated banks’ exposure to NBFIs?
- Discuss some policy recommendations regarding bank lending to NBFIs.
Large European banks call for further integration, but is it in consumers’ interests?
Those of a certain age may remember the fanfare which heralded the introduction of the Single European market (SEM) on 1 January 1993. It promised the removal of internal barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and people. One sector that was noticeably absent from the single market, however, was banking.
Moves towards banking union only started after the global financial crisis in 2008. However, as a report published on the 2 September 2025 by the Association of Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) highlights, the institutional frameworks of banking in the EU are still deeply fragmented – the promised integration through the European Banking Union (EBU) is still incomplete. This has put European banks at a competitive disadvantage in global markets compared with rivals from the USA and Asia, thereby reducing their profitability and growth prospects. The report called on the European Central Bank (ECB) and national regulatory authorities to remove hurdles to cross-border banking services in the EU. This would enhance the strategic position of European banks.
In this blog we will trace the development of the EBU and analyse the current state of integration. We discuss the AFME proposals for achieving greater integration and highlight their benefits for large banks. We also analyse the barriers which limit full integration and examine the risks that retail customers might see few benefits from the proposed changes.
What is meant by European Banking Union (EBU)?
The 1993 Single European Market (SEM) in goods and services removed internal barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU. As part of this, there were harmonised standards and regulations for goods and services, no capital controls, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and common regulations on consumer protection, product safety, environmental protection and labour rights.
This integration of previously restricted domestic markets was designed to boost economic growth, employment and competitiveness by increasing trade and investment flows. Offering consumers greater choice would expose firms to greater competition. This would drive down prices and encourage greater efficiency and innovation. It has generally achieved these goals across many industries.
However, banking was excluded from integration. The 1985 White Paper, Completing the Internal Market, proposed the liberalisation of financial services, but banking remained regulated at the national level. This was influenced by interrelated economic, political and institutional forces, national sovereignty and political sensitivities, fragmented regulation and concerns about risk.
Even as the EU moved towards economic and monetary union (EMU) during the 1990s, there was no discussion of integration for the banking industry. However, that changed following the 2008 financial crisis and 2011 eurozone crisis. Both episodes exposed vulnerabilities in the EU banking system which required taxpayer support. It was proposed that deeper integration of the banking sector would ensure its stability and resilience. This stimulated moves towards European Banking Union (EBU), starting with the European Council agreeing its creation in 2012. There are three institutional pillars to the Union:
- The Single Supervisory Mechanism (2014) for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) ensures consistent oversight. SIFIs are banks with over €30 billion of liabilities or 20% of national GDP.
- The Single Resolution Mechanism (2016) manages the orderly resolution of failing banks with minimal costs to taxpayers. There is a central board for resolution decisions and a fund financed by the banking industry to support resolution actions.
- A European Deposit Insurance Scheme (still under negotiation) is proposed to protect depositors uniformly across the banking union against bank default.
The Union is intended to operate under a harmonised set of EU laws, known as the ‘Single Rulebook’, which includes implementing the BASEL III capital requirements, regulating national deposit insurance and setting rules for managing failing banks.
What is the state of integration at present?
Moves towards European Banking Union (EBU) have contributed to enhancing the resilience of the European banking system. This was one of its major objectives. European banks are much more secure having increased capital and liquidity levels, reduced credit risks and become less reliant on state-aid. They are also less profitable.
The AFME report points to remaining gaps in Banking Union which raise the cost for banks offering cross-border retail banking within the EU and limit the incentive to do so. The report identifies four such gaps.
1. Ring fencing. Although there is a single supervisory mechanism for large systemically important institutions, since the financial crisis national regulators have implemented ‘ring-fencing’. This aims to protect retail banking activities from riskier investment banking. Ring-fencing retains liquidity, dividends and other bank assets within national borders to protect their retail banking sectors from contagion. The ECB estimates €225 billion of capital and €250 billion of liquidity is trapped by such national restrictions. Further, unharmonized and unpredictable use of capital buffers adds complexity for capital management at a multinational level. This particularly impacts large institutions. Banks’ cross-border activities are impeded since they are restricted in the way they can use capital and liquidity across the bloc.
The report argues that the stringent requirements of the ECB and the multiple layers of macroprudential requirements imposed at national level have led to an unnecessarily high level of capital. This disadvantages large European banks compared to their international competitors.
2. Impediments to cross-border M&As in banking within the EU. This is due to cumbersome authorisation processes, involving multiple authorities at both national and supra-national level. Further, national authorities may interfere in the process of M&As in a bid to prevent domestic banks being acquired by ones from other parts of the EU. A recent example is UniCredit’s bid for Germany’s Commerzbank, which the German government opposes. These characteristics restrict opportunities for consolidation and efficiency gains for European banks.
The AFME report estimates that once eurozone banks grow beyond €450 billion in total assets, they suffer from negative synergies putting them at a competitive disadvantage to global competitors. Indeed, US banks are able to leverage scale economies from their domestic market to enter large EU markets. An example is JP Morgan’s entry into multiple EU markets through its Chase brand.
3. Contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) are complex and lack transparency. This makes it difficult for banks to predict future commitments. The fund itself and its target level were determined at a time when banks had low buffers. Since then, European banks have raised their loss absorbing capacity and the AFME report proposes that further increases in contributions to the fund need to be carefully considered and reviewed.
4. The Deposit Guarantee Scheme remains unimplemented and there are still differences in national schemes. This situation creates uncertainty for banks, which would like the European scheme for large systemically important institutions to be implemented fully.
These AFME proposals focus on the aspects of banking union which benefit large European institutions in their strategic competition with global rivals. These aspects would create ‘European’ banks as opposed to ‘national’ ones. This would give them the scale to be ‘champions’ in global competition. In particular, the large banks want lower capital requirements and the relaxation of national ring-fencing for retail banking to allow them greater freedom to achieve scale and scope economies across the bloc.
To what extent this will benefit retail customers, however, is debateable.
Will retail banking customers benefit?
Retail banking across Europe remains deeply fragmented, with significant price differentials from country to country. The following table illustrates pricing differentials for two retail products – loans and mortgages – across a sample of EU countries for July 2025.
The data show a range of average interest rates offered across the countries with a range of 5.03% for loans to households and 0.92% for new mortgages. These price differentials reflect a broad array of factors, not least the different institutional legal and risk characteristics of the national markets. They also reflect varying degrees of competition and the lack of cross-border trade in retail banking products. Retail banking remains a largely domestic industry within the EU. Cross-border banking services remain a marginal activity with non-domestic retail deposits rising by just 0.5% and non-domestic retail loans rising by just 0.3% between 2016 and 2024.
There are both natural and policy-induced barriers, which means that retail banking will remain largely segmented by nation.
On the demand-side, retail banking is largely a relational rather than a transactional service, with consumption taking place over a long time-period with significant financial risks attached. Even with deposit insurance and a lender of last resort (the central bank), consumers exhibit significant loss aversion in their use of retail banking services. Consequently, trust and confidence are important characteristics for consumers and that means they are likely to prefer to use familiar domestic institutions.
Further, perceptions about switching costs mean that consumers are reluctant to change suppliers. Such costs are exacerbated by language, cultural and legal differences between European countries, which can make the perceived costs of banking beyond national boundaries prohibitively expensive and create a preference for local institutions.
Consumer preferences can also create idiosyncratic market structures for retail banking services in particular countries. For instance, in several countries across the EU, notably Germany, mutualised credit unions account for significant shares of retail banking. This may limit the potential for foreign banks to penetrate Europe’s largest market.
There are also policy-induced obstacles to cross-border retail banking which operate on the demand-side. These include discriminatory tax treatment of foreign financial services which deters their purchase by consumers. Further, there are still eight different currencies used in the EU across the 27 member states (Denmark, Poland and Sweden are three significant examples). This creates costs and risks associated with currency exchange for consumers that may deter their use of cross-border deposits and loans. The full adoption of a single currency across the EU seems a long way off, which will limit the potential for a single banking market, particularly in the retail segment.
Retail banking as a public utility
Some argue that retail banking is a public utility and should be regulated as such. It has a simple business model, taking deposits, making payments and making loans. Like other utilities, such as water and energy, retail banking is an essential service for the smooth functioning of the economy and society. Like other utilities, bank failures create severe problems for the economy and society.
Since the financial crisis, stability in retail banking has been much more highly valued. In the period preceding the crisis, banks had used retail deposits to cross-subsidise their risky investment banking. The bank failures that resulted from this had severe economic consequences. The danger today is that by relaxing capital and liquidity restrictions too much, large banks may once again engage in risky behaviour, subsidised by retail banking – for example, by engaging in cross-border M&As. These may benefit their shareholders but provide little benefit to retail customers.
Further, allowing these large banks freedom to move funds around the bloc may lead to capital being concentrated in the most profitable markets, leaving less profitable markets / countries underserved. Retail banking, as a public utility, should be required to provide services there.
Who ultimately benefits?
The integration of banking services in the EU has progressed since the financial crisis, producing a more resilient system. However, there are features of retail banking which mean that integration which benefits consumers may be difficult to achieve.
Addressing the policy gaps identified by the AFME report may benefit large European banks by facilitating the scale economies to make them competitive internationally. However, until consumers are prepared, or able, to source banking services beyond national borders, they will see little benefit from European Banking Union (EBU) through lower prices and/or better service. The nature of retail banking in the EU suggests that this is unlikely any time soon.
Furthermore, since retail banking exhibits features of a public utility, regulators need to be wary of permitting the type of behaviour by large institutions which creates dangerous systemic risk. The worry is that, in the drive to create ‘European Champions’ in banking, regulators ignore the potential impact on retail customers.
Articles
Book
Report
Data and Information
Questions
- Using an average cost (AC) schedule, illustrate the efficiency benefits for large European banks from banking union.
- Analyse the sources of efficiency gains that European banks can gain from cross-border M&As.
- Explain how European retail banking customers could gain from such efficiency.
- Analyse why they may not.
- Analyse whether retail banking in Europe needs to be regulated as a public utility.
Recently, US regulators have decided not to impose further increases in capital requirements on US large and mid-sized banks. The increased requirements, proposed in late 2023, would have been stricter than required under the Bank for International Settlements’ Basel framework1 and provoked a fierce backlash, involving public statements by senior bank executives, aggressive lobbying and extensive media campaigns, including an ad-spot during the Superbowl.
Following bank insolvencies in the USA during 2023, such as Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and First Republic, which required bailouts from US banking authorities, many commentators argued that the failures were caused by the institutions having insufficient capital to cover losses on their portfolios of US Treasuries. The implication was that banks, particularly mid-sized ones (which were exempt from the Basel framework), needed to have more capital.
US regulators duly responded by proposing what was officially known as ‘the finalisation of Basel III’, but was commonly referred to as ‘the Basel Endgame’. The proposed system-wide reforms involved more conservative calculations of the risk-weighted value of assets such as mortgages, corporate loans and loans to other financial institutions. Further, the proposals also sought to subject banks with $100bn to $250bn of assets to Basel capital adequacy requirements for the first time. Previously they applied only to banks with over $250bn of assets.
The issue focused attention on the capital banks hold to protect against insolvency and provoked discussion about how much of a capital buffer these institutions should have.
Critics argued the changes would lead to significant increases in the capital required to be held by all US banks compared to international rivals and have an adverse effect on their profitability and international competitiveness. Further, critics pointed out that problems at SVB and First Republic were down to confidence issues and it was argued that more capital would not have saved those institutions from insolvency.
This blog examines these issues. It analyses the role of capital in banks and discusses the trade-off that banks face between profitability and security in their activities which underpinned their resistance to the proposed increases. I will also discuss the other trade-off that banks face – between liquidity and profitability – and how liquidity is just as important an influence on bank’s survival in times of crisis.
The role of capital in banks
As with any limited company, a bank’s capital is the difference between total assets and its liabilities. It is the funding provided by long-term investors. These are primarily shareholders, but also long-term debtholders. Bank capital acts as a buffer to prevent insolvency. Capital represents the amount that the value of assets have to fall before the bank is insolvent (value of assets is below liabilities). Higher capital provides a greater buffer. Lower capital provides a smaller buffer.
Capital is uniquely important for commercial banks compared to non-financial companies because of the nature of the assets banks hold – financial securities and loans. Banks are susceptible to losses from financial securities and ‘bad debts’, which are directly reflected in the value of their capital. Further, unlike non-financial companies, the failure of a bank has a significantly negative impact on wider economic activity.
The trade-off between profitability and security
As limited companies, banks face a trade-off between profitability and security in lending. The more profitable a loan, the more risky (less secure) it is likely to be. This creates the potential for the interests of deposit holders and regulators on the one hand and bank executives and shareholders on the other to diverge.
Depositors place their funds with banks and will want the bank to be secure, holding lots of capital to prevent insolvency. However, bank executives and shareholders have a strong incentive to lower the capital buffer, particularly equity, because it produces a higher return for shareholders.
Let’s analyse the implications of different capital buffers on profitability and return, particularly the return to shareholders. A performance measure used to analyse the return to shareholders is Return on Equity (RoE) – the amount of profit each pound of equity capital generates, expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit by equity capital and multiplying by 100.
If a bank has a net profit of £1m and holds £10m of equity capital, the RoE is:
If it has a net profit of £1m and holds £5m of equity capital, the RoE is:
In the first case, the capital buffer generates a 10 per cent RoE. In the second case, the lower capital buffer generates a higher RoE of 20 per cent. This provides a simple illustration of the trade-off banks face. The lower the amount of capital they hold, the higher the return to shareholders but the lower capital buffer, which increases the risk of insolvency.
In different time periods, banks have held varying percentages of capital. For much of the 20th century, banks had capital ratios of around 20 per cent, generating a return on equity of between 5 and 10 per cent. Bank lending was restricted, with shareholders accepting a lower return on equity, while holding a higher amount of capital to cover potential losses from financial assets. Indeed, in the 19th century, banks typically held even more capital, amounting to about 50 per cent of their assets, making bank lending even more restricted.
However, starting from the 1960s, but accelerating during the 1980s, banks began to change their view of the trade-off between profitability and security. This coincided with the liberalisation of credit markets and a greater emphasis on ‘shareholder value’ in business. Average capital ratios fell from over 20 per cent in the 1960s to below 10 per cent in the early 2000s. The return on equity went in the opposite direction. In the 1960s, it was typically between 5 and 10 per cent; by the decade before the 2008 financial crisis it had risen to above 20 per cent. The trade-off had shifted in favour of profitability.
However, the dangers of this shift were exposed during the 2008 financial crisis. The capital held by banks was very thin and not designed to cope with extremely stressful economic circumstances. Banks found they had insufficient capital to cover losses from big decreases in the value of their securitised debt instruments like CDOs (collateralised debt obligations) and struggled to raise additional capital from worried investors.
After the crisis, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) determined that banks needed to hold sufficient capital, not just to cope with the ebbs and flows of the business cycle but also as a buffer in the rare, yet extremely stressful, economic circumstances that might arise. Therefore, international bank regulations were redrafted under the auspices of the BIS’s Basel Committee. The third version of these regulations is known as ‘Basel III’. It was agreed in 2017, with the measures being phased in from 2022. Basel III significantly raised the capital buffers for large global banks, known as ‘globally systemically-important banks’ (G-SIBs) and the use of stress-tests to model the robustness of banks’ balance sheets to cope with severe economic pressures.
Figure 1 shows the changes to the average return on equity (RoE) and average tier 1 capital ratios for a sample of 10 G-SIBs as a result of Basel III. By 2022, all the banks had capital buffers which were well above the minimum required under Basel III for tier 1 capital – 8.5 per cent. The trade-off was that banks’ average return on equity was much lower – around 8 per cent in 2022, compared to 16 per cent in 2007.
How much capital is enough capital?
Ever since the Basel III agreement, there had been discussions around tightening capital requirements further but no agreement had been reached. One aspect of Basel III was that increased capital was only required of the largest banks. Mid-sized and smaller banks, which are a significant part of the US market, were exempt. The failures of the mid-sized US Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and First Republic Bank provoked unilateral proposals by the US authorities through the ‘Basel Endgame’. This would raise capital requirements for large banks and extend capital requirements to mid-sized institutions.
But large US banks resisted these proposals, arguing that the authorities were pushing the trade-off too far in favour of security, attempting to make banks very safe but offering a poor return for investors and decreasing the amount of lending banks would conduct.
The furore raises the question as to what is an adequate amount of capital. One reference point is non-financial institutions. These typically hold much more capital relative to the value of total assets – in the range from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. If banks had capital ratios at that level, or even higher, they would be perceived as extremely safe, but might not offer much return to shareholders, impinging on the ability of banks to raise additional capital when they needed it.
Further, other critics argue that there is too much emphasis placed on capital adequacy. Focusing on capital ignores the other significant trade-off banks face in their activities – between liquidity and profitability. Indeed, recent bank failures were not due to insufficient capital but other problems relating to the management of the institution, which led to a loss of confidence by not only by investors, but primarily, deposit-holders.
The other trade-off: liquidity and profitability
While banks have to be solvent, they have to manage their trade-off between liquidity and profitability carefully too. A commercial bank’s basic business model involves maturity transformation – transforming liquid deposits into illiquid assets, such as government bonds and loans, to generate profit. This requires balancing the desire for profitability with the liquidity needs of depositors. If banks get it wrong, then it can lead to a loss of confidence and a ‘run’ on deposits. This is what happened to both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Credit Suisse. The failures of both institutions were not due to insufficient capital but poor liquidity management, which eventually caused a loss of confidence.
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) demonstrated poor liquidity management, involving a narrow depositor base which was very responsive to changes in interest rates, and an illiquid asset portfolio. During the coronavirus pandemic, tech start-ups received substantial venture capital funding and deposited it with SVB. SVB did not have the capacity or inclination to lend all of the extensive deposits which they were receiving. Instead, the management decided to invest in long-term fixed rate government debt securities. Such securities represented 56 per cent of SVB’s assets in 2020.
Since SVB’s depositors were businesses, unlike retail depositors they were more sensitive to changing interest rates. As rates rose, businesses moved their funds out in search of higher rates, creating a liquidity problem for SVB. The bank was forced to sell $21bn of its long-dated bonds to provide liquidity. However, it endured losses when it sold the bonds as bond prices had fallen, reflecting higher interest rates. Therefore, it needed to raise capital to replace the losses from those sales.
Investors baulked at this, however, particularly when they observed the accelerating deposit outflows. It was the ‘run’ on deposits that was the problem ($42 billion on 8 March 2023 alone), not the unrealised losses on government bonds relative to capital. It was only when the losses were realised that the problem arose. Indeed, Bank of America was in a similar situation with a substantial portfolio of long-term government debt. However, it did not have to realise its ‘paper losses’ since its deposits were more ‘sticky’.
Once confidence is lost and there is a run on deposits, even a bank which has a capital buffer deemed to be more than sufficient is doomed to fail. Take Credit Suisse. It was subject to the Basel framework and had capital ratios similar to its ultimate acquirer UBS. However, it had a risky business culture that pushed the trade-off too much towards profitability. This led to repeated scandals, fines and losses, which caused investors to lose confidence in the institution.
But, once again, it was not the financial losses that was the problem. It was the loss of confidence by depositors. The institution suffered deposit withdrawals of CHF 67 billion in the first three months of 2023. Attempts to stem the outflow with a ‘liquidity backstop’ provided by the Swiss National Bank on 15 March 2023 failed to reassure investors and depositors. Instead, the bank run intensified, with daily withdrawals of demand deposits topping CHF 10bn in the week afterwards. Credit Suisse failed and the Swiss banking regulators quickly forced its acquisition by UBS.
Conclusion
Bank capital is important. After the financial crisis, banks needed to redress the trade-off between profitability and security in lending. However, while the US authorities desire to improve the security of their banking system is laudable, the focus on capital is misplaced. Ever-increasing capital is not the solution to every banking crisis.
Ultimately, banks depend on confidence. Once that confidence is lost, there is little an institution can do to prevent failure. More emphasis needs to be placed on better management of assets and liabilities to maintain sufficient profitability, while at the same time being both liquid and secure. This will maintain confidence, not only by investors, but particularly by deposit-holders.
1 See Economics 11e, section 18.2; Economics for Business 9e, section 28.2; Essentials of Economics 9e, section 11.2.
Articles
- Basel III: The US has started a race to the bottom
Financial Times, Daniel Davies (14/9/24)
- Basel III: What It Is, Capital Requirements, and Implementation
Investopedia, Peter Gratton (22/6/24)
- BofA: dumb, or just unlucky?
Financial Times, Robert Armstrong (30/6/24)
- Why America’s banks need more capital
The Economist (19/10/23)
- The Fed gets ratioed, bank capital edition
Financial Times, Steven Kelly (31/8/23)
- The US pushback against ‘Basel Endgame’
Financial Times, Laura Noonan, Claire Jones and Joshua Franklin (19/3/24)
- SVB is not a canary in the banking gold mine
Financial Times, Robert Armstrong (10/3/23)
- Basel Endgame stumbles at the finish line
The Banker, Farah Khalique (16/7/24)
- Why did Silicon Valley Bank fail?
Economics Observatory, John Turner (17/3/23)
- Why did Credit Suisse fail and what does it mean for banking regulation?
Economics Observatory, Rebecca Stuart (13/4/23)
Video
Blog
Information
Questions
- Explain the role of capital for a commercial bank.
- Research the ‘Basel Endgame’ proposals. Why would US regulators want banks to hold more capital?
- Explain the trade-off between profitability and security that banks face.
- Explain the trade-off between profitability and liquidity that banks face.
- Research Silicon Valley Bank’s failure and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in the bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
- Research Credit Suisse’s demise and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in that bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
Ten years ago, the financial crisis deepened and stock markets around the world plummeted. The trigger was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest US investment bank. It filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. This was not the first bank failure around that time. In 2007, Northern Rock in the UK (Aug/Sept 2007) had collapsed and so too had Bear Stearns in the USA (Mar 2008).
Initially there was some hope that the US government would bail out Lehmans. But when Congress rejected the Bank Bailout Bill on September 29, the US stock market fell sharply, with the Dow Jones falling by 7% the same day. This was mirrored in other countries: the FTSE 100 fell by 15%.
At the core of the problem was excessive lending by banks with too little capital. What is more, much of the capital was of poor quality. Many of the banks held securitised assets containing ‘sub-prime mortgage debt’. The assets, known as collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), were bundles of other assets, including mortgages. US homeowners had been lent money based on the assumption that their houses would increase in value. When house prices fell, homeowners were left in a position of negative equity – owing more than the value of their house. With many people forced to sell their houses, prices fell further. Mortgage debt held by banks could not be redeemed: it was ‘sub-prime’ or ‘toxic debt’.
Response to the crisis
The outcome of the financial crash was a series of bailouts of banks around the world. Banks cut back on lending and the world headed for a major recession.
Initially, the response of governments and central banks was to stimulate their economies through fiscal and monetary policies. Government spending was increased; taxes were cut; interest rates were cut to near zero. By 2010, the global economy seemed to be pulling out of recession.
However, the expansionary fiscal policy, plus the bailing out of banks, had led to large public-sector deficits and growing public-sector debt. Although a return of economic growth would help to increase revenues, many governments felt that the size of the public-sector deficits was too large to rely on economic growth.
As a result, many governments embarked on a period of austerity – tight fiscal policy, involving cutting government expenditure and raising taxes. Although this might slowly bring the deficit down, it slowed down growth and caused major hardships for people who relied on benefits and who saw their benefits cut. It also led to a cut in public services.
Expanding the economy was left to central banks, which kept monetary policy very loose. Rock-bottom interest rates were then accompanied by quantitative easing. This was the expansion of the money supply by central-bank purchases of assets, largely government bonds. A massive amount of extra liquidity was pumped into economies. But with confidence still low, much of this ended up in other asset purchases, such as stocks and shares, rather than being spent on goods and services. The effect was a limited stimulation of the economy, but a surge in stock market prices.
With wages rising slowly, or even falling in real terms, and with credit easy to obtain at record low interest rates, so consumer debt increased.
Lessons
So have the lessons of the financial crash been learned? Would we ever have a repeat of 2007–9?
On the positive side, financial regulators are more aware of the dangers of under capitalisation. Banks’ capital requirements have increased, overseen by the Bank for International Settlements. Under its Basel II and then Basel III regulations (see link below), banks are required to hold much more capital (‘capital buffers’). Some countries’ regulators (normally the central bank), depending on their specific conditions, exceed these the Basel requirements.
But substantial risks remain and many of the lessons have not been learnt from the financial crisis and its aftermath.
There has been a large expansion of household debt, fuelled by low interest rates. This constrains central banks’ ability to raise interest rates without causing financial distress to people with large debts. It also makes it more likely that there will be a Minsky moment, when a trigger, such as a trade war (e.g. between the USA and China), causes banks to curb lending and consumers to rein in debt. This can then lead to a fall in aggregate demand and a recession.
Total debt of the private and public sectors now amounts to $164 trillion, or 225% of world GDP – 12 percentage points higher than in 2009.
China poses a considerable risk, as well as being a driver of global growth. China has very high levels of consumer debt and many of its banks are undercapitalised.
It has already experienced one stock market crash. From mid-June 2015, there was a three-week fall in share prices, knocking about 30% off their value. Previously the Chinese stock market had soared, with many people borrowing to buy shares. But this was a classic bubble, with share prices reflecting exuberance, not economic fundamentals.
Although Chinese government purchases of shares and tighter regulation helped to stabilise the market, it is possible that there may be another crash, especially if the trade war with the USA escalates even further. The Chinese stock market has already lost 20% of its value this year.
Then there is the problem with shadow banking. This is the provision of loans by non-bank financial institutions, such as insurance companies or hedge funds. As the International Business Times article linked below states:
A mind-boggling study from the US last year, for example, found that the market share of shadow banking in residential mortgages had rocketed from 15% in 2007 to 38% in 2015. This also represents a staggering 75% of all loans to low-income borrowers and risky borrowers. China’s shadow banking is another major concern, amounting to US$15 trillion, or about 130% of GDP. Meanwhile, fears are mounting that many shadow banks around the world are relaxing their underwriting standards.
Another issue is whether emerging markets can sustain their continued growth, or whether troubles in the more vulnerable emerging-market economies could trigger contagion across the more exposed parts of the developing world and possibly across the whole global economy. The recent crises in Turkey and Argentina may be a portent of this.
Then there is a risk of a cyber-attack by a rogue government or criminals on key financial insitutions, such as central banks or major international banks. Despite investing large amounts of money in cyber-security, financial institutions worry about their vulnerability to an attack.
Any of these triggers could cause a crisis of confidence, which, in turn, could lead to a fall in stock markets, a fall in aggregate demand and a recession.
Finally there is the question of the deep and prolonged crisis in capitalism itself – a crisis that manifests itself, not in a sudden recession, but in a long-term stagnation of the living standards of the poor and ‘just about managing’. Average real weekly earnings in many countries today are still below those in 2008, before the crash. In Great Britain, real weekly earnings in July 2018 were still some 6% lower than in early 2008.
Articles
- The Lehman Brothers Crash And The Chaos That Followed – Everything You Need To Know
HuffPost, Isabel Togoh (15/9/18)
- Ten years after the crash: have the lessons of Lehman been learned?
The Guardian, Yanis Varoufakis, Ann Pettifor, Mark Littlewood, David Blanchflower, Olli Rehn, Nicky Morgan and Micah White (14/9/18)
- Financial crisis 10 years on: Who are the winners and losers?
Independent, Kate Hughes (14/9/18)
- Investment winners and losers 10 years after the crash
Financial Times, Kate Beioley (14/9/18)
- Nine Lessons From the Global Financial Crisis
Bloomberg, Mohamed A. El-Erian (13/9/18)
- Lehman — why we need a change of mindset
Deutsche Welle, Thomas Straubhaar (14/9/18)
- ‘The world is sleepwalking into a financial crisis’ – Gordon Brown
The Guardian, Larry Elliott (12/9/18)
Economists warn of new financial crisis on anniversary of 2008 crashChannel 4 news, Helia Ebrahimi (15/9/18)
- Financial crisis 2008: Five biggest risks of a new crash
International Business Times, Nafis Alam (14/9/18)
- Carney warns against complacency on 10th anniversary of financial crisis
BBC News, Kamal Ahmed (12/9/18)
- A cyberattack could trigger the next financial crisis, new report says
CNBC, Bob Pisani (13/9/18)
Information and data
Questions
- Explain the major causes of the financial market crash in 2008.
- Would it have been a good idea to have continued with expansionary fiscal policy beyond 2009?
- Summarise the Basel III banking regulations.
- How could quantitative easing have been differently designed so as to have injected more money into the real sector of the economy?
- What are the main threats to the global economy at the current time? Are any of these a ‘hangover’ from the 2007–8 financial crisis?
- What is meant by ‘shadow banking’ and how might this be a threat to the future stability of the global economy?
- Find data on household debt in two developed countries from 2000 to the present day. Chart the figures. Explain the pattern that emerges and discuss whether there are any dangers for the two economies from the levels of debt.
Ten years ago (on 9 August 2007), the French bank BNP Paribas sparked international concern when it admitted that it didn’t know what many of its investments in the US sub-prime property market were worth and froze three of its hedge funds. This kicked off the financial crisis and the beginning of the credit crunch.
In September 2007 there was a run on the Northern Rock bank in the UK, forcing the Bank of England to provide emergency funding. Northern Rock was eventually nationalised in February 2008. In July 2008, the US financial authorities had to provide emergency assistance to America’s two largest mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Then in September 2008, the financial crisis really took hold. The US bank, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy, sending shock waves around the global economy. In the UK, Lloyds TSB announced that it was taking over the UK’s largest mortgage lender, Halifax Bank Of Scotland (HBOS), after a run on HBOS shares.
Later in the month, Fortis, the huge Belgian banking, finance and insurance company, was partly nationalised to prevent its bankruptcy. Also the UK government was forced to take control of mortgage-lender, Bradford & Bingley’s, mortgages and loans, with the rest of the business sold to Santander.
Early in October 2008, trading was suspended in the main Icelandic banks. Later in the month, the UK government announced a £37 billion rescue package for Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS. Then in November it partially nationalised RBS by taking a 58% share in the bank. Meanwhile various other rescue packages and emergency loans to the banking sector were taking place in other parts of the world. See here for a timeline of the financial crisis.
So, ten years on from the start of the crisis, have the lessons of the crisis been learnt. Could a similar crisis occur again?
The following articles look at this question and the answers are mixed.
On the positive side, banks are much more highly capitalised than they were ten years ago. Moves by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in its Basel III regulatory framework have ensured that banks are much more highly capitalised and operate with higher levels of liquidity. What is more, banks are generally more cautious about investing in highly complex and risky collateralised assets.
On the negative side, increased flexibility in labour markets, although helping to keep unemployment down, has allowed a huge squeeze on real wages as austerity measures have dampened the economy. What is more, household debt is rising to possibly unsustainable levels. Over the past year, unsecured debt (e.g. personal loans and credit card debt) have risen by 10% and yet (nominal) household incomes have risen by only 1.5%. While record low interest rates make such loans relatively affordable, when interest rates do eventually start to rise, this could put a huge strain on household finances. But if households start to rein in their borrowing, this would put downward pressure on aggregate demand and jeopardise economic growth.
Articles
- The crisis: 10 years in three chart
BBC News, Simon Jack (9/8/17)
- Darling: ‘Alarm bells ringing’ for UK economy
BBC News (9/8/17)
- Alistair Darling warns against ‘complacency’ 10 years on from financial crisis
The Telegraph (9/8/17)
- A decade after the financial crisis consumers are still worried
Independent, Kate Hughes (9/8/17)
- Bankers still do not understand complex reasons behind financial crash, senior politician warns
Independent, Ashley Cowburn (9/8/17)
- We let the 2007 financial crisis go to waste
The Guardian, Torsten Bell (9/8/17)
- Bank of England warns of complacency over big rise in personal debt
The Guardian, Larry Elliott (24/7/17)
- On the 10th anniversary of the global financial meltdown, here’s what’s changed
USA Today, Kim Hjelmgaard (8/8/17)
- Financial crisis: Ten years ago today the tremors started
Irish Times (9/8/17)
- If We Are Racing to the Pre-Crisis Bubble, Here Are 12 Charts To Watch
Bloomberg, Sid Verma (9/8/17)
Videos
Questions
- Explain what are meant by ‘collateralised debt obligations (CDOs)’.
- What part did CDOs play in the financial crisis of 2007–8?
- In what ways is the current financial situation similar to that in 2007–8?
- In what ways is it different?
- Explain the Basel III banking regulations.
- To what extent has the Bank of England exceeded the minimum Basel III requirements?
- Explain what is meant by ‘stress testing’ the banks? Does this ensure that there can never be a repeat of the financial crisis?
- Why is it desirable for central banks eventually to raise interest rates to a level of around 2–3%? Why might it be difficult for central banks to do that?
