Tag: liquidity

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 $250 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

• How Silicon Valley Bank Collapsed in 36 Hours: What Went Wrong?

The Wall Street Journal on YouTube

Blog

• Bank failures and the importance of balance sheets

Sloman Economics News site, Dean Garratt (5/4/23)

Information

• The Basel Committee – overview

Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

• What is bank capital? What is the Basel III Endgame?

Brookings, David Wessel (7/3/24)

Questions