With the financial crisis came accusations towards the banking sector that they had taken on too many bad risks. Banks were lending money on more and more risky ventures and this in part led to the credit crunch. Since then, bank lending has fallen and banks have been less and less willing to take on risky investments.
Small businesses tend to fall (rightly or wrongly) into the category of high risk and it is this sector in particular that is finding itself struggling to make much needed investments. All businesses require loans for investments and improvements and if the banking sector is unable or unwilling to lend then these improvements cannot take place.
Quantitative easing has been a key response across the world to the credit crisis to encourage banks to begin lending to each other and to customers. A new government backed scheme worth £20bn aims to increase bank lending to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). By guaranteeing £20bn of the participating banks’ own borrowing, lenders will be able to borrow more cheaply than normal. As the banks (so far including Barclays, Santander, RBS and Lloyds Banking Group) can borrow at a cheaper rate, they will therefore be able to pass this on to the businesses they lend to. Under this National Loan Guarantee Scheme (NLGS), businesses will be able to borrow at interests rates that are 1 percentage point lower than those outside the scheme. £5bn will initially be made available with subsequent installments each of £5bn to come later.
With the Budget looming, the Chancellor is keen to show that the government is delivering on its promise to give smaller businesses access to finance at lower interest rates. If this initiative does indeed stimulate higher lending, it may be a much needed boost for the economy’s faltering economic growth. Criticisms have been leveled at the scheme, saying that although it is a step in the right direction, it can by no means be assumed that it will be sufficient to solve all the problems. In particular, the NLGS is unlikely to provide much help for those small businesses that can’t get finance in the first place, irrespective of the cost of the borrowing. Furthermore some banks, notably HSBC, have chosen not to participate in the scheme, due to it not being commercially viable. The overall effect of this scheme will take some time be seen, but if it is effective, it could give the economy and the small business sector a much needed boost.
Banks to join credit-easing scheme Associated Press (20/3/12)
Credit easing: small businesses to get £20bn of guaranteed cheap loans Telegraph, Harry Wilson (20/3/12)
Bank lending scheme targets small businesses BBC News (20/3/12)
Move over Merlin, credit easing has arrived Independent, Ben Chu (20/3/12)
Credit easing injects £20bn into small firms Sky News (20/3/12)
UK launches small firm loan scheme, critics want more Reuters, Fiona Shaikh (20/3/12)
Osborne’s big plan: £20bn for small businesses Independent, Andrew Grice and Ben Chu (20/3/12)
George Osborne launches new scheme to boost lending to businesses Guardian, Larry Elliott (20/3/12)
Questions
- What is credit easing? Has the government’s previous credit easing had the intended effect?
- Why are small and medium sized enterprises normally seen as risky investments?
- Briefly explain the thinking behind this National Loan Guarantee Scheme.
- What are the criticisms currently levelled at this scheme? To what extent are they justified?
- Why has HSBC said that the scheme is not commercially viable for the bank?
- Explain why this scheme could provide a stimulus to the UK economy.
Original post (19/9/11)
The Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), led by Sir John Vickers, has just delivered its report. Central to its remit was to investigate ways of making retail banking safer and avoid another bailout by the government, as was necessary in 2007/8.
The report recommended the ‘ringfencing’ of retail banking from the more risky investment banking, often dubbed ‘casino banking’. In other words, if the investment arm of a universal bank made a loss, or even faced collapse, this would not affect the retail arm. The ringfenced operations would include banking services to households and small businesses. Wholesale and investment banking would be outside the ringfence. As far as retail banking services to big business are concerned, these could be inside the ringfence, but details would need to be worked out about precisely which banking services to big business would be inside and which would be outside the ringfence.
The ICB was keen to stress that the ringfence should be high and that the retail arm should be both operationally and legally separate from the wholesale/investment arm. The ringfenced part of the bank should have a capital adequacy ratio of up to 20% (above the Basel III recommendations), with at least 10% of liabilities in the form of equity. Capital could only be moved from the ringfenced arm to the investment arm of the bank if this did not breach the 10% ratio.
The ICB report also recommends measures to increase competition in banking, including making it easier to switch accounts, greater transparency about the terms of accounts and a referral of the banking industry for a competition investigation in 2015. The cost to the banking industry of the measures, if fully implemented, is estimated to be between £4m and £7m.
Because of the requirement in the report for banks to build up their capital and the danger that a too rapid process here would jeopardise the expansion of lending necessary to underpin the recovery, banks would be given until 2019 to complete the recommendations. Moves towards this, however, would need to start soon.
Update (19/12/11)
In December 2011, the government announced that it would accept most of the ICB report, including separating retail and investment banking. It would not, however, demand such stringent capital requirements as those recommended in the report.
The following articles examine the details of the proposals and their likely effectiveness. The later articles examine the government’s response.
Original articles (some with videos)
Vickers report: main points The Telegraph (12/9/11)
Bank reforms aim to get taxpayers off the hook Money Marketing, Natalie Holt, Steve Tolley (15/9/11)
Vickers report: key point Guardian, Jill Treanor (12/9/11)
Vickers report: banks get until 2019 to ringfence high street operation Guardian, Jill Treanor (12/9/11)
Bank reform: To rip asunder The Economist (17/9/11)
Banking reforms: Good fences The Economist (17/9/11)
Banks barred from putting depositors’ money at risk as Vickers’ reforms increases costs by up to £7 billion The Telegraph, Harry Wilson (12/9/11)
Vickers report: Q&A The Telegraph (12/9/11)
Vickers report: reaction The Telegraph (12/9/11)
ICB bank reforms could cost UK banks £7bn a year The Telegraph, Harry Wilson (12/9/11)
Money Insider: Will reforms really shake up the high street? Independent, Andrew Hagger (17/9/11)
Bank reforms bring quick improvements Financial Times, Elaine Moore (16/9/11)
Vickers’ critics are missing the point Financial Times, Diane Coyle and Jonathan Haskel (12/9/11)
Audio podcasts
The Business podcast: The Vickers report Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty, Jill Treanor and Nils Pratley (13/9/11)
Vickers: Bank reforms ‘will get taxpayers off the hook’ BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, Sir John Vickers (12/9/11)
‘Enormous dilemma’ for UK’s biggest banks BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, Robert Peston (12/9/11)
ICB report and press conference
Press Conference: Vickers: Banks ‘must be ring-fenced’ BBC News (12/9/11)
Portal to Full Report and Transcript of Opening Remarks by Sir John Vickers at Press Conference. Independent Commission on Banking
Later articles and webcasts
Chancellor George Osborne to announce banking split BBC News, Nigel Cassidy (19/12/11)
Osborne to address MPs on Vickers’ report into banking BBC News (19/12/11)
Bank break-up law by 2015 BBC News. Robert Peston (18/12/11)
Osborne to Pledge U.K. Bank Legislation by 2015 Bloomberg, Gonzalo Vina and Jennifer Ryan (19/12/11)
In bank reform, ‘in full’ must mean exactly that Independent (19/12/11)
How far and how fast is key to the reforms Independent, Ben Chu (19/12/11)
George Osborne poised to bring in full banking reforms The Telegraph, Louise Armitstead and Harry Wilson (18/12/11)
EU will not impede Vickers reforms Financial Times, George Parker and Sharlene Goff (18/12/11)
Questions
- Explain the difference between a capital adequacy ratio and a liquidity ratio. Will the Vickers proposals help to increase the liquidity of the retail banking arm of universal banks?
- Does it matter if equity capital in excess of the 10% requirement for retail banking is transferred to a bank’s investment arm?
- What risks are there for a bank in retail banking?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of bringing in the measures gradually over an 8-year period?
- Does it matter that the capital adequacy requirements are higher than under the internationally accepted standards in Basel III?
- Assume that there is another global financial crisis. Will the proposals in the report mean that the UK taxpayer will not have to provide a bailout?
Most people are risk-averse: we like certainty and are generally prepared to pay a premium for it. The reason is that certainty gives us positive marginal utility and so as long as the price of insurance (which gives us certainty) is less than the price we place on certainty, we will be willing to pay a positive premium. By having insurance, we know that should the unexpected happen, someone else will cover the risk. As long as there are some risk-averse people, there will always be a demand for insurance.
However, will private companies will be willing to supply it? For private market insurance to be efficient, 5 conditions must hold:
1. Probabilities must be independent
2. Probabilities must be less than one
3. Probabilities must be known or estimable
4. There must be no adverse selection
5. There must be no moral hazard
If these conditions hold or if there are simple solutions, then insurance companies will be willing and able to provide insurance at a price consumers are willing to pay.
There are many markets where we take out insurance – some of them where insurance is compulsory, including home and car insurance. However, one type of insurance that is not compulsory is that for cyclists. No insurance is needed to cycle on the road, but with cycle use increasing and with that the number of accidents involving cyclists also increasing, the calls for cyclists to have some type of insurance is growing. If they are hit by someone without insurance and perhaps suffer from a loss of income; or if they cause vehicle damage, they will receive no compensation. However, whilst the risk of accident is increasing for cyclists, they are still statistically less likely to cause an accident than motorists. Perhaps a mere £30 or £40 per year for a policy is a price worth paying to give cyclists certainty. At least, this is what the Association of British Insurers (ABI) is claiming – hardly surprising when their members made a combined loss of £1.2 billion!
Articles
Cyclists ‘urged to get insurance’ BBC News, Maleen Saeed (26/11/11)
Cyclists urged to get more insurance by … insurance companies Road.CC, Tony Farrelly (26/11/11)
The future of cycle insurance Environmental Transport Assocaition (24/11/11)
Questions
- With each of the above conditions required for private insurance to be possible, explain why each must hold.
- What do we mean by no moral hazard and no adverse selection? Why would their existence prevent a private company from providing insurance?
- Using the concept of marginal utility theory, explain why there is a positive demand insurance.
- What might explain why cyclists are less likely to take out insurance given your answer to the above question?
- Do you think cyclist insurance should be compulsory? If governments are trying to encourage more sustainable transport policy, do you think this is a viable policy?
Cycling generated £2.9 billion for the UK economy in 2010 – a rise of 28% over 2009. This amounts to an average ‘Gross Cycling Product’ of £233 for each of Britain’s 12½ million cyclists. What is more, the figures are likely to continue growing rapidly in future years. This is the central finding of the LSE report, The British Cycling Economy, authored by Dr Alexander Grous, a productivity and innovation specialist at the Centre of Economic Performance (CEP) at the London School of Economics.
The major benefits to the economy from cycling include the sale of cycles and accessories, cycle maintenance, the generation of wages and tax revenues from 23,000 people employed directly in bicycle manufacture, sales, distribution and the maintenance of cycling infrastructure. There are also health benefits. These are partly the direct benefits to the economy of fewer days taken in sick leave by cyclists (a contribution of £128 million in 2010) and partly the health and well-being benefits to the individual and the saving on healthcare expenditure.
But are enough people being encouraged to get on their bikes? What are the major incentives for people to cycle? The report identifies the following:
• Cycling being made both segment- and gender-neutral, appealing to the widest number of user groups, across all ages and genders;
• Coordinated and preferential traffic signals that facilitate faster and safer journeys;
• ‘Short cut’ routes in dense urban areas and capital cities that join arterial road routes;
• Traffic calming initiatives that include road narrowing and speed restrictions that range from 30km/h to ‘walking speeds’;
• Extensive parking and in some areas, designated women-only spaces with CCTV and enhanced lighting;
• Established bike rental schemes;
• Long-running training programmes for children;
• The prevalence of strict ‘liability laws’ that assume a car driver is responsible in the event of a collision between a car and a cyclist.
Read the following articles and report and then consider, as an economist, how the benefits and costs should be analysed and what policy implications might follow.
Articles
Wheels of fortune: how cycling became a £3bn-a-year industry Independent, Tim Hume (22/8/11)
Cycling worth £3bn a year to UK economy, says LSE study Guardian (21/8/11)
Cycling industry gives economy £3bn boost BBC News (22/8/11)
Growth in cycling ‘boosting economy’, says LSE BBC News (22/8/11)
Britain Gets Back On Its Bike British Cycling (22/8/11)
‘Gross Cycling Product’ worth £2.9bn to UK economy says LSE Road.cc (22/8/11)
Report
The British Cycling Economy: ‘Gross Cycling Product’ Report LSE, Dr Alexander Grous
Questions
- How is the figure of £2.9bn derived? Explain whether it is a ‘value-added’ figure?
- Which of the benefits can be regarded as externalities?
- Are there any external costs from cycling? If so, what are they and how might they be minimised?
- How might incentives be changed in order to encourage more people to cycle?
- Assume that you are a government or local authority considering whether or not to increase investment in cycle paths. What factors would you take into consideration in order to make a socially efficient decision?
Friday 5 August 2011 saw the end of a very bad fortnight for stock markets around the world. In Japan the Nikkei 225 had fallen by 8.2%, in the USA the Dow Jones had fallen by 9.8%, in the UK the FTSE 100 was down 11.6% and in Germany the Dax was down 14.9%. In the first five days of August alone, £148 billion had been wiped off the value of the shares of the FTSE 100 companies and $2.5 trillion off the value of shares worldwide.
But why had this happened and what are likely to be the consequences?
The falls have been caused by the growing concerns of investors about the health of the global economy and the global financial system. There are worries that the European leaders at their summit on 21 July did not do enough to prevent the default of large countries such as Spain and Italy. There are concerns that the US political system, following the squabbling in Congress over raising the sovereign debt ceiling for the country, may not be up to dealing with the country’s huge debts. Indeed, the rating agency, Standard & Poor’s, downgraded the USA’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. This is the first time that the USA has not had top rating.
Then there are worries about the general slowing down of the world economy and how this will compound the problem of sovereign debt as it hits tax revenues and makes it harder to reduce social security payments. Underlying all this is the fear that the problem of indebtedness that contributed to the banking crisis of 2007/8 has not gone away; it has simply been transferred from banks to governments. As Robert Peston states in his article, linked to below:
The overall volume of indebtedness in the economy is therefore still with us – although it has been shuffled from financial sector to public sector.
And if you took the view four years ago that the quantum of debt in the system was unsustainably large, then you would argue that by propping up the banks, the day of reckoning was being postponed, not cancelled.
… just like the awakening in 2007 to the idea that many of the housing loans and associated financial products were worthless, so there is a growing fear that a number of financially overstretched governments, especially in the eurozone, will not be able to repay their debts in full.
Which brings us to the consequences. Key to the answer is confidence. If governments can reassure markets over the coming days and weeks that they have credible policies to support highly indebted countries in the short term and to sustain demand in the global economy (e.g. through further quantitative easing in the USA (QE3)); and if they can also reassure markets that they have tough and credible policies to reduce their debts over the longer term, then confidence may return. But it will not be an easy task to get the balance right between sustaining recovery in the short term and fiscal retrenchment over the long term. Meanwhile consumers are likely to become even more cautious about spending – hardly the recipe for recovery.
Videos
Markets turmoil: What you need to know BBC News, Jonty Bloom (5/8/11)
Turmoil on stock markets persists as share prices fall BBC News, Robert Peston (5/8/11)
Global stock market crash – video analysis Guardian, Larry Elliott and Cameron Robertson (5/8/11)
S&P downgrade US AAA credit rating BBC News, Marcus George (6/8/11)
U.S. loses AAA credit rating Reuters, Paul Chapman (6/8/11)
U.S. loses AAA credit rating from S&P CNN (5/8/11)
US loses AAA rating ITN (6/8/11)
Shares slump amid euro fears Channel 4 News, Faisal Islam (4/8/11)
What triggered the turmoil? Financial Times, Sarah O’Connor and Edward Hadas (5/8/11)
Fears eurozone woes will spread BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (5/8/11)
Articles
FTSE 100 tumbles in worst week since height of the crisis The Telegraph, Richard Blackden (5/8/11)
Global recession fears as stock markets tumble to nine-month low The Telegraph, Alistair Osborne (3/8/11)
Global markets on the brink of crisis Guardian, Larry Elliott (5/8/11)
A week of financial turmoil: interactive Guardian, Nick Fletcher, Paddy Allen and James Ball (5/8/11)
Turmoil on stock markets persists BBC News (5/8/11)
Bank worries bring echoes of 2008 BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (5/8/11)
The origins of today’s market mayhem BBC News, Robert Peston (5/8/11)
Time for a double dip? The Economist (6/8/11)
Rearranging the deckchairs The Economist (6/8/11)
High hopes, low returns The Economist (4/8/11)
The debt-ceiling deal: No thanks to anyone The Economist (6/8/11)
Six years into a lost decade The Economist (6/8/11)
Debt crisis Q&A: what you need to know about Standard & Poor’s credit rating The Telegraph, Richard Tyler (6/8/11)
U.S. Will Roll Out QE3 After S&P Rating Cut, Li Daokui Says Bloomberg (6/8/11)
China flays U.S. over credit rating downgrade Reuters, Walter Brandimarte and Gavin Jones (6/8/11)
US credit rating downgraded to AA+ by Standard & Poor’s Guardian, Larry Elliott, Jill Treanor and Dominic Rushe (5/8/11)
Reaction to the US credit rating downgrade Guardian (6/8/11)
Market turmoil and the economics of self-harm Guardian, Mark Weisbrot (5/8/11)
Week ahead: Markets will sort through credit downgrade Moneycontrol (6/8/11)
S&P Statement
S&P statement on lowering US long-term debt to AA+ Guardian (6/8/11)
Stock market indices
FTSE 100: historical prices, 1984 to current day Yahoo Finance
Dow Jones Industrial Average: historical prices, 1928 to current day Yahoo Finance
Nikkei 225 (Japan): historical prices, 1984 to current day Yahoo Finance
DAX (Germany): historical prices, 1990 to current day Yahoo Finance
CAC 40 (France): historical prices, 1990 to current day Yahoo Finance
Hang Seng (Hong Kong): historical prices, 1986 to current day Yahoo Finance
SSE Composite (China: Shanghai): historical prices, 2000 to current day Yahoo Finance
BSE Sensex (India): historical prices, 1997 to current day Yahoo Finance
Stock markets BBC
Questions
- Why have share prices been falling?
- Does the fall reflect ‘rational’ behaviour on the part of investors? Explain.
- Why does ‘overshooting’ sometimes occur in share price movements?
- Why has the USA’s credit rating been downgraded by Standard & Poor’s? What are the likely implications for the USA and the global economy of this downgrading?
- How is the downgrading likely to affect the return on (a) existing US government bonds; (b) new US government bonds?
- Why might worries about the strength of the global recovery jeopardise that recovery?
- To what extent has the debt problem simply been transferred from banks to governments? What should governments do about it in the short term?
With the financial crisis came accusations towards the banking sector that they had taken on too many bad risks. Banks were lending money on more and more risky ventures and this in part led to the credit crunch. Since then, bank lending has fallen and banks have been less and less willing to take on risky investments.