Tag: USA

Posted on

‘Liberation day’: or start of a Trump slump?

On April 2nd, Donald Trump announced sweeping new ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. These would be in addition to 25% tariffs on imports of cars, steel and aluminium already announced and any other tariffs in place on individual countries, such as China. The new tariffs would apply to US imports from every country, except for Canada and Mexico where tariffs had already been imposed.

The new tariffs would depend on the size of the country’s trade in goods surplus with the USA (i.e. the USA’s trade in goods deficit with that country). The bigger the percentage surplus, the bigger the tariff. But, no matter how small a country’s surplus or even if it runs a deficit (i.e. imports more goods from the USA than it sells), it would still face a minimum 10% ‘baseline’ tariff.

President Trump stated that these tariffs are to counter what he claims as unfair trade practices inflicted on the USA. People had been expecting that these tariffs would reflect the tariffs applied by other countries on US goods and possibly also non-tariff barriers, such as the ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef in the EU and UK. But, by basing them on the size of a country’s trade surplus, this meant imposing them on many countries with which the USA has a free-trade deal with no tariffs at all.

The table gives some examples of the new tariff rates. The largest rates would apply to China and south-east Asian countries, which supply low-priced products, such as clothing, footwear and electronics to the US market. In China’s case, it would a reciprocal tariff rate of 34% plus the previously imposed tariff rate of 20%, giving a massive 54%.

What is more, the ‘de minimis’ exemption will be scrapped for packages sent by private couriers. This had exempted goods of $800 or less sent direct to consumers from China and other countries from companies such as Temu and Alibaba. It is also intended to cut back on packages of synthetic opioids sent from these countries.

Since ‘liberation day’, President Trump has made several changes to these tariff rates. On 9 April he ‘paused’ the implementation of the tariffs above the 10% rate pending trade discussions with individual countries. However, in the case of China, there have been tit-for-tat tariff increases, so that by the end of April, the US tariff rate on Chinese imports was a massive 145% and the Chinese rate on US imports was 125%. The two countries seemed locked in a high-stakes game of chicken.

The US formula for reciprocal tariffs

As we have seen, the proposed (and then paused) reciprocal tariffs do not reflect countries’ tariff rates on the USA. Instead, rates for countries running a trade in goods surplus with the USA (a US trade deficit with these countries) are designed to reflect the size of that surplus as a percentage of their total imports from the USA. The White House has published the following formula.


where:

When the two elasticities are multiplied together this gives 1 and so can be ignored. As there was no previous ‘reciprocal’ tariff, the rise in the reciprocal tariff rate is the actual reciprocal tariff rate. The formula for the reciprocal tariff rate thus becomes the percentage trade surplus of that country with the USA: (exports – imports) / imports, expressed as a percentage. This is then rounded up to the nearest whole number.

President Trump also stated that countries would be given a discount to show US goodwill. This involves halving the rate from the above formula and then rounding up to the nearest whole number.

Take the case of China. China’s exports of goods to the USA in 2024 were $439bn, while its imports of goods from the USA were $144bn, giving China a trade surplus with the USA of $295bn. Expressing this as a percentage of exports gives ($295/$439 × 100)/2 = 33.6%, rounded up to 34%. For the EU, the formula gives ($227bn/$584bn × 100)/2 = 19.4%, rounded up to 20%.

Questioning the value of φ. Even if you accept the formula itself as the basis for imposing tariffs, the value of the second term in the denominator, φ, is likely to be seriously undervalued. The term represents the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariff changes. It shows the proportion of a tariff rise that is passed on to consumers, which is assumed to be just one quarter, with producers bearing the remaining three quarters. In reality, it is highly likely that most of the tariff will get passed on, as it was with the tariffs applied in Donald Trump’s first presidency.

If the value for φ were 1 (i.e. all the tariff passed on to the consumer), the formula would give a ‘reciprocal tariff’ of just one quarter of that with a value of φ of 0.25. The figures in the table above would look very different. If the rates were then still halved, all countries with a tariff below 40% (such as the EU, Japan or India) would instead face just the baseline tariff of 10%. What is more, China’s rate would be reduced from 54% to 30% (the original 20% plus the baseline of 10%). Cambodia’s would be reduced to 13%. Even if the halving discount were no longer applied, the rates would still be only half of those shown in the table (and 37% for China).

Are the tariffs justified?

Even if a correct value of φ were used, a percentage trade surplus is a poor way of measuring the protection used by a country. Many countries running a trade surplus with the USA are low-income countries with low labour costs. They have a comparative advantage in labour-intensive goods. That allows such goods to be purchased at low cost by Americans. Their trade surplus may not be a reflection of protection at all.

Also, if protection is to be used to reflect the trade imbalance with each country, then why impose a 10% baseline on countries, like the UK, with which the USA has a trade surplus? By the Trump administration’s logic, it ought to be subsidising UK imports or accepting of UK tariffs on imports of US goods.

But President Trump also wants to address the USA’s overall trade deficit. The US balance of trade in goods deficit was $1063bn in 2023 (the latest year for a full set of figures). But the overall balance of payments must balance. There were thus surpluses elsewhere on the balance of payments account (and some other deficits). There was a surplus on the services account of $278bn and on the financial account of $924bn. In other words, inward investment to the USA (both direct and portfolio) and the acquisition of dollars by other countries as a reserve asset were very large and helped to drive up the exchange rate. This made US goods less competitive and imports relatively cheaper.

The USA has a large national debt of some $36 trillion of which some $9 trillion is owed to foreign investors (people, institutions or countries). Servicing the debt pushes up US interest rates. This helps to maintain a high exchange rate, thereby making imports cheaper and worsening the trade deficit. The fiscal burden of servicing the debt also crowds out US government expenditure on items such as defence, education, law and order and infrastructure. President Trump hopes that tariffs will bring in additional revenue to help finance the deficit.

Effects on the USA

If the tariffs reduce spending on imports and if other countries do not retaliate, then the US balance of trade should improve. However, a tariff is effectively a tax on imported goods. It is charged to the importing company not to the manufacturer abroad. As we saw in the context of the false value for φ, most of the tariff will be passed on to American consumers. Theoretically the incidence of the tariff is shared between the supplier and the purchaser, but in practice, most of the higher cost to the importer will be passed on to the consumer. As with other taxes, the effect is to transfer money from the consumer to the government, making people poorer but giving the government extra revenue. This revenue will be dollars, not foreign currency.

As some of the biggest price rises will be for cheap manufactured products, such as imports from China, and various staple foodstuffs, the effects could be felt disproportionately by the poor. Higher import prices will allow domestic producers competing with these imports to raise their prices too. The tariffs are thus likely to be inflationary. But because the inflation would be the result of higher costs, not higher demand, this could lead to recession as real incomes fell.

American resources will be diverted by the tariffs from sectors in which the USA has a comparative advantage, such as advanced manufactured goods and services, to more basic products. Tariffs on cheap imports will make domestic versions of these products more profitable: even though they are more costly to produce, they will be sold at a higher price.

The tariffs will also directly affect goods produced by US companies. The reason is that many use complex supply chains involving parts produced abroad. Take the case of Apple. Even though it is an American company which designs its products in California, the company sources parts from several Asian countries and has factories in Vietnam, China, India, and Thailand. These components will face tariffs and thus directly affect the price of iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, etc. Similarly affected are other US tech hardware manufacturers, US car manufactures, clothing and footwear producers, such as The Gap and Nike, and home goods producers.

Monetary policy response. How the Fed would respond is not clear. Higher inflation and lower growth, or even a recession, produces what is known as ‘stagflation’: inflation combined with stagnation. Many countries experienced stagflation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when higher commodity prices led to soaring inflation and economic slowdown. There was a cost-of-living crisis.

If a central bank has a simple mandate of keeping inflation to a target, higher inflation would be likely to lead to higher interest rates, making recession even more likely. It is the inflation of the two elements of stagflation (inflation and stagnation) that is addressed. The recession is thus likely to be deepened by monetary policy. But as the Fed has a dual mandate of controlling inflation but also of maximising employment, it may choose not to raise interest rates, or even to lower them, to get the optimum balance between these two targets.

If other countries retaliate by themselves raising tariffs on US exports and/or if consumers boycott American goods and services, this will further reduce incomes in the USA. Just two days after ‘liberation day’, China retaliated against America’s 34% additional tariff on Chinese imports by imposing its own 34% tariff on US imports to China.

A trade war will make the world poorer, especially the USA. Investors know this. In the two days following ‘liberation day’, stock markets around the world fell sharply and especially in the USA. The Dow Jones was down 9.3% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down 11.4%.

Effects on the rest of the world

The effects of the tariffs on other countries will obviously depend on the tariff rate. The countries facing the largest tariffs are some of the poorest countries which supply the USA with simple labour-intensive products, such as garments, footwear, food and minerals. This could have a severe effect on their economies and cause rapidly increasing poverty and hardship.

If countries retaliate, then this will raise prices of their imports from the USA and hurt their own domestic consumers. This will fuel inflation and push the more seriously affected countries into recession.

If the USA retaliates to this retaliation, thereby further escalating the trade war, the effects could be very serious. The world could be pushed into a deep recession. The benefits of trade, where all countries can gain by specialising in producing goods with low opportunity costs and importing those with high domestic opportunity costs, would be seriously eroded.

What President Trump hopes is that the tariffs will put him in a strong negotiating position. He could offer to reduce or scrap the tariffs on a particular country in exchange for something he wants. An example would be the offer to scrap or reduce the baseline 10% tariff on UK exports and/or the 25% tariff on UK exports of cars, steel and aluminium. This could be in exchange for the UK allowing the importation of US chlorinated chicken or abolishing the digital services tax. This was introduced in 2020 and is a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta and X.

It will be fascinating but worrying to see how the politics of the trade war play out.

Videos

Articles

White House publications

Questions

  1. What is the law of comparative advantage? Does this imply that free trade is always the best alternative for countries?
  2. From a US perspective, what are the arguments for and against the tariffs announced by President Trump on 2 April 2025?
  3. What response to the tariffs is in the UK’s best interests and why?
  4. Should the UK align with the EU in responding to the tariffs?
  5. What is meant by a negative sum game? Explain whether a trade war is a negative sum game. Can a specific ‘player’ gain in a negative sum game?
  6. What happened to stock markets directly following President Trump’s announcement and what has happened since? Explain you findings.
Posted on

Investment set to fall as business is baffled by Trump

Economic growth is closely linked to investment. In the short term, there is a demand-side effect: higher investment, by increasing aggregate demand, creates a multiplier effect. GDP rises and unemployment falls. Over the longer term, higher net investment causes a supply-side effect: industrial capacity and potential output rise. This will be from both the greater quantity of capital and, if new investment incorporates superior technology, from a greater productivity of capital.

One of the biggest determinants of investment is certainty about the future: certainty allows businesses to plan investment. Uncertainty, by contrast, is likely to dampen investment. Investment is for future output and if the future is unknown, why undertake costly investment? After all, the cost of investment is generally recouped over several months or year, not immediately. Uncertainty thus increases the risks of investment.

There is currently great uncertainty in the USA and its trading partners. The frequent changes in policy by President Trump are causing a fall in confidence and consequently a fall in investment. The past few weeks have seen large cuts in US government expenditure as his administration seeks to dismantle the current structure of government. The businesses supplying federal agencies thus face great uncertainty about future contracts. Laid-off workers will be forced to cut their spending, which will have knock-on effect on business, who will cut employment and investment as the multiplier and accelerator work through.

There are also worries that the economic chaos caused by President Trump’s frequent policy changes will cause inflation to rise. Higher inflation will prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. This, in turn, will increase the cost of borrowing for investment.

Tariff uncertainty

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty for business concerns the imposition of tariffs. Many US businesses rely on imports of raw materials, components, equipment, etc. Imposing tariffs on imports raises business costs. But this will vary from firm to firm, depending on the proportion of their inputs that are imported. And even when the inputs are from other US companies, those companies may rely on imports and thus be forced to raise prices to their customers. And if, in retaliation, other countries impose tariffs on US goods, this will affect US exporters and discourage them from investing.

For many multinational companies, whether based in the USA or elsewhere, supply chains involve many countries. New tariffs will force them to rethink which suppliers to use and where to locate production. The resulting uncertainty can cause them to delay or cancel investments.

Uncertainty has also been caused by the frequent changes in the planned level of tariffs. With the Trump administration using tariffs as a threat to get trading partners to change policy, the threatened tariff rates have varied depending on how trading partners have responded. There has also been uncertainty on just how the tariff policy will be implemented, making it more difficult for businesses to estimate the effect on them.

Then there are serious issues for the longer term. Other countries will be less willing to sign trade deals with the USA if they will not be honoured. Countries may increasingly look to diverting trade from the USA to other countries.

Video

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Find out what tariffs have been proposed, imposed and changed since Donald Trump came to office on 20 January 2025.
  2. In what scenario might US investment be stimulated by Donald Trump’s policies?
  3. What countries’ economies have gained or are set to gain from Donald Trump’s policies?
  4. What is the USMCA agreement? Do Donald Trump’s policies break this agreement?
  5. Find out and explain what has happened to the US stock market since January 2025. How do share prices affect business investment?
  6. Which sector’s shares have risen and which have fallen?
  7. Using the Data link above, find out what has been happening to the US Policy Uncertainty Index since Donald Trump was elected and explain particular spikes in the index. Is this mirrored in the global Policy Uncertainty Index?
  8. Are changes in the Policy Uncertainty Index mirrored in the World Uncertainty Index (WUI) and the CBOE Volatility Index: VIX?
Posted on

‘Tariff is the most beautiful word.’ Not for economists!

In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”

President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.

But it is not that straightforward.

Problems with tariffs for the USA

Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.

In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.

So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.

If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.

At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.

The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.

Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.

Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.

A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.

Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.

The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.

Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world

The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.

It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.

As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):

The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.

Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.

Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.

The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.

Articles

Questions

  1. Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
  2. In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
  3. Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
  4. Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
  5. Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
  6. What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?
Posted on

The ‘Basel Endgame’: how much capital is enough capital?

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

Video

Blog

Information

Questions

  1. Explain the role of capital for a commercial bank.
  2. Research the ‘Basel Endgame’ proposals. Why would US regulators want banks to hold more capital?
  3. Explain the trade-off between profitability and security that banks face.
  4. Explain the trade-off between profitability and liquidity that banks face.
  5. Research Silicon Valley Bank’s failure and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in the bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
  6. Research Credit Suisse’s demise and trace the ‘run’ on deposits in that bank. Explain why investors baulked at injecting more capital.
Posted on

Is Keynes back in fashion?

With many countries experiencing low growth some 12 years after the financial crisis and with new worries about the effects of the coronavirus on output in China and other countries, some are turning to a Keynesian fiscal stimulus (see Case Study 16.6 on the student website). This may be in the form of tax cuts, or increased government expenditure or a combination of the two. The stimulus would be financed by increased government borrowing (or a reduced surplus).

The hope is that there will also be a longer-term supply-side effect which will boost potential national income. This could be through tax reductions creating incentives to invest or work more efficiently; or it could be through increased capacity from infrastructure spending, whether on transport, energy, telecommunications, health or education.

In the UK, the former Chancellor, Sajid Javid, had adopted a fiscal rule similar to the Golden Rule adopted by the Labour government from 1997 to 2008. This stated that, over the course of the business cycle, the government should borrow only to invest and not to fund current expenditure. Javid’s rule was that the government would balance its current budget by the middle of this Parliament (i.e. in 2 to 3 years) but that it could borrow to invest, provided that this did not exceed 3% of GDP. Previously this limit had been set at 2% of GDP by the former Chancellor, Philip Hammond. Using his new rule, it was expected that Sajid Javid would increase infrastructure spending by some £20 billion per year. This would still be well below the extra promised by the Labour Party if they had won the election and below what many believe Boris Johnson Would like.

Sajid Javid resigned at the time of the recent Cabinet reshuffle, citing the reason that he would have been required to sack all his advisors and use the advisors from the Prime Minister’s office. His successor, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rishi Sunak, is expected to adopt a looser fiscal rule in his Budget on March 11. This would result in bigger infrastructure spending and possibly some significant tax cuts, such as a large increase in the threshold for the 40% income tax rate.

A Keynesian stimulus would almost certainly increase the short-term economic growth rate as inflation is low. However, unemployment is also low, meaning that there is little slack in the labour market, and also the output gap is estimated to be positive (albeit only around 0.2%), meaning that national income is already slightly above the potential level.

Whether a fiscal stimulus can increase long-term growth depends on whether it can increase capacity. The government hopes that infrastructure expenditure will do just that. However, there is a long time lag between committing the expenditure and the extra capacity coming on stream. For example, planning for HS2 began in 2009. Phase 1 from London to Birmingham is currently expected to be operation not until 2033 and Phase 2, to Leeds and Manchester, not until 2040, assuming no further delays.

Crossrail (the new Elizabeth line in London) has been delayed several times. Approved in 2007, with construction beginning in 2009, it was originally scheduled to open in December 2018. It is now expected to be towards the end of 2021 before it does finally open. Its cost has increased from £14.8 billion to £18.25 billion.

Of course, some infrastructure projects are much quicker, such as opening new bus routes, but most do take several years.

The first five articles look at UK policy. The rest look at Keynesian fiscal policies in other countries, including the EU, Russia, Malaysia, Singapore and the USA. Governments seem to be looking for a short-term boost to aggregate demand that will increase short-term GDP, but also have longer-term supply-side effects that will increase the growth in potential GDP.

Articles

Questions

  1. Illustrate the effect of an expansionary fiscal policy with a Keynesian Cross (income and expenditure) diagram or an injections and withdrawals diagram.
  2. What is meant by the term ‘output gap’? What are the implications of a positive output gap for expansionary Keynesian policy?
  3. Assess the benefits of having a fiscal rule that requires governments to balance the current budget but allows borrowing to invest.
  4. Would there be a problem following such a rule if there is currently quite a large positive output gap?
  5. To what extent are the policies being proposed in Russia, the EU, Malaysia and Singapore short-term demand management policies or long-term supply-side policies?