Banks, News

And Now An Argument That More Capital Makes Banks Less Safe

One reason that you’re in for seven lean years in the investment banking business is that bank capital requirements are going up due to Basel III, and “capital is expensive” in some loose sense, so banks will have less money to use to make loans and/or pay you. Some people think that this is mostly bull, because capital is not actually any more “expensive” than any other form of funding, though those people often actually don’t care that much about paying you so it may not be worth listening to them. In any case here is the abstract to an amusing new paper by Karlo Kauko of the Finnish central bank, because yes I make a point of being up to date on everything published by the Finnish central bank:

Bank managers often claim that equity is expensive relative to debt, which contradicts the Modigliani-Miller irrelevance theorem. … An opaque bank must signal its solvency by paying high and stable dividends in order to keep depositors tranquil. This signalling may require costly liquidations if the return on assets has been poor, but not paying the dividend might cause panic and trigger a run on the bank. The more equity has been issued, the more liquidations are needed during bad times to pay the expected dividend to each share.

Don’t worry if you don’t get that name dropping, it doesn’t matter. Also don’t worry too much about the paper itself, which is amusing but also sort of nuts.* The basic idea to come away with is that bank equity is where the bank puts all its hopes and dreams, and that, if banks are more or less reflections of hopes and dreams, the people who provide the real funding for the banks – repo counterparties and clearing banks and suchlike – are going to be inordinately influenced by reading equity tea leaves. Because what else are they going to read?

Complex banking organisations, where the true leverage cannot be accurately estimated by outsiders, are more likely to consider equity capital expensive. A bank with simple operations, a transparent balance sheet and no off-balance sheet risks cannot mimic high profitability by choosing an extreme leverage and paying a high and steady return on a tiny equity capital. Interestingly, minimising the capital base seems to have become more commonplace when banking has become more complicated. The true leverage of modern large and complex banking organisations can hardly be deduced from public information.

In Kauko’s story the way that banks signal to depositors – for which read “repo counterparties and suchlike” – that everything’s fine is by paying big, stable dividends on their equity. Surely if a bank is paying a healthy dividend, which after all it could cut off at any time, it won’t have any trouble paying off its debts, right? The problem is that this makes the dividend something like a real cash obligation for a bank in crisis: if it cuts the dividend, it will signal to lenders that they’re next, and they’ll all stampede for the exits. So equity is “expensive” in that it requires banks to fork over lots of cash for dividends.

This is to some degree news to regulators, who like equity precisely because it has no cash cost when banks really need to conserve cash – like I said, the banks can always cut the dividend. But it’s probably correct to say that (1) like a quarter of every bank earnings call these days is taken up with “so, when will the regulators let you raise your dividend or buy back more stock?” and (2) there is a pretty strong link in many people’s – investors’ and bankers’ – minds between “the regulator is letting us pay more dividends” and “we are probably not going to blow up all that soon.” So this seems like a good point:

The model has at least one obvious policy implication. If the public observes clear symptoms of a recession, it is reasonable to restrict banks’ dividend payments. If such a regulation is enforced and applies to all banks, dividend cuts tell nothing about the profitability of any particular institution, and bank solvencies could be enhanced with retained earnings without bank-specific adverse signalling effects.

In a way this happens now – bank regulators are keeping a closer eye on everyone’s dividends and buybacks than they were in 2007, even healthy-ish banks – but the blanket dividend restriction in a crisis is maybe a good idea, akin to making all the banks take TARP to avoid stigmatizing the banks who really needed it.

Like I said, this paper is sort of nuts and maybe doesn’t tell you exactly why bank capital is expensive or whatever. But I like the basic move, which is to remind us that with bank balance sheets so opaque, the short-term lenders who mostly fund banks will have to grasp at whatever imperfect indicators they can find – and that they will react to those imperfect indicators in ways that are weird and unintended. Things that should preserve capital and make a bank safer, like cutting its dividend, may have the opposite effect. Not sure that that means that more capital = more danger, but it’s at least a reminder that more capital doesn’t = no danger either.

Why is equity capital expensive for opaque banks? [Bank of Finland via the BIS research hub]

* Because its core belief is that banks don’t like equity because it requires them to pay out more actual cash dollars in a crisis than alternative funding sources do, and that just can’t be right. The paper’s model breaks down bank funding into two things, dividend-paying equity and interest-bearing deposits, and more or less postulates that the “dividend is higher than any deposit rate the bank might offer, consistently with at least some casual empirical observations on banks’ dividend policies,” which, like, that’s just your opinion man, but banks in fact fund using a range of seniorities and tenors and pay a range of rates on their debt funding instruments and it strikes me as hardly set in stone that your blended interest expense will be less than your dividend; JPM’s is (crudely I get interest expense / total liabilities = 0.65%, div yield = 2.67%), but BAC’s isn’t (1.14% vs. 0.55%) and neither is GS’s (1.5% vs. 1.28%). And that’s in a pretty pretty low rate environment. Once you get away from the belief that equity has a higher cash cost for banks than debt, which is implicitly assumed and also, like, obvs wrong, you start to wonder about the results. I’m being a little unfair because yeah probably the average bank pays a higher dividend than it pays on its shortest-dated most run-sensitive funding, but I suspect that’s the wrong margin to look at. Whatever.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

67 Responses to “And Now An Argument That More Capital Makes Banks Less Safe”

  1. Guester says:

    Matt this is way too long

  2. guest guestheimer says:

    I got 3 paragraphs in and realized that I'd rather listen to hold music than read this bullshit. Sorry Matt.

  3. The Truth says:

    Modigliani-Miller is the stupidest thing in all of finance. Except for CAPM, EMH and all the other stupid stuff.

    – guy who is not a CFA and vehemently disagrees with just about everything they make you learn for Level II

  4. Alan_Stanwyk says:

    200 word footnotes are Matt's NKI

  5. HomoBro says:

    All I want out of life is to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit.

  6. Simulation says:

    Enjoyed the read. It was not too long. Equity Capital, Tier 1 or however you measure the safety and soundness of banks has morphed over the years. Each revision is more complex than the previous, and for some, the complexity means more defined, thus a better measure. This is illogical. Banks like JPM weathered the crisis very well. Perhaps their model is correct. Higher capital levels are probably a function of it, but I'm sure the other variables that come in to play are too many to list. Lesson learned, run your business/institution/bank robustly, and be prepared for the adverse effects from unintended consequences and randomness. These new regulations are just going to be a platform for further research on the topic. At least there will be jobs.

    • guest says:

      the goal of the comment section is not to engage matt in an intellectual discussion. We just call him names and stuff.

  7. FKApmco says:

    The Commentariat is focused on job cuts and bonus numbers and Matty gives us a chapter on a Finnish central banker's amusing and sort of nuts thoughts on bank capital.

    This is why I love Matt Levine and want to go and live in his world.

  8. GrapeVine says:

    Modigliani-Miller just got busted in a pump and dump scheme. They were caught in Amsterdam with a bunch of strippers…euro-less.

  9. FA in steel city says:

    time for an afternoon dump will read in bathroom

  10. Per Kurowski says:

    This is another important angle of how the capital requirements for banks based on officially perceived risk has messed it up.

    Consider… what if terrorist infiltrated bank regulations? Would that not be more something for the Homeland Security than for the SEC and the FED and the Dodd-Franks?

  11. crork says:

    CjhDxs I really like and appreciate your blog.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  12. lawlaholic says:

    I cannot thank you enough for the blog.Really thank you! Will read on…

  13. Thanks again for the post.Much thanks again. Cool.

  14. Great blog post.Really thank you! Will read on…

  15. toronto limo says:

    Yeah, it is clear now !… Just can not figure out how often do you update your blog?!…

  16. I really enjoy the blog post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

  17. satnam says:

    Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic article.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.

  18. SAP BASIS says:

    I really liked your article.Really thank you! Really Cool.

  19. diamants says:

    Thank you for your blog post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

  20. Really appreciate you sharing this blog article.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  21. Thank you for your article. Cool.

  22. I cannot thank you enough for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  23. Trainingen says:

    Awesome article.Thanks Again. Really Great.

  24. A round of applause for your blog.Much thanks again. Will read on…

  25. Thanks for the blog article. Great.

  26. Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic article. Cool.

  27. Major thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Awesome.

  28. I am so grateful for your article.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  29. TP6Ktv wow, awesome blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Great.

  30. Rob says:

    It’s arduous to seek out knowledgeable folks on this matter, but you sound like you know what you’re speaking about! Thanks

  31. Fantastic blog.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  32. I really like and appreciate your blog post. Fantastic.

  33. Awesome blog article.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  34. I really enjoy the post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  35. management says:

    Thanks for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Great.

  36. Fantastic article post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  37. I really liked your article.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  38. Hey, thanks for the post.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  39. How to says:

    Thank you for your post.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  40. A round of applause for your post. Awesome.

  41. Thanks a lot for the article post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  42. Wow, great blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  43. moved here says:

    Thanks for the blog post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  44. Major thankies for the article post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  45. Appreciate you sharing, great post.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  46. Needed to compose you one bit of observation in order to thank you very much the moment again with the incredible principles you’ve shown above. This has been simply strangely generous of you in giving unhampered exactly what many individuals would have advertised for an ebook to end up making some cash for themselves, mostly now that you might have done it in case you wanted. Those concepts as well acted like the easy way to fully grasp some people have similar interest just as mine to see a whole lot more with reference to this matter. I think there are numerous more fun occasions ahead for people who look into your blog post.

  47. gif maker says:

    Great post.Much thanks again. Great.

  48. amateur porn says:

    Thanks a lot for the blog article. Much obliged.

  49. foot rest says:

    This is one awesome blog. Great.

  50. Awesome blog article.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  51. Jeanius said on September 20, 2012

  52. Finance says:

    Very informative post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

  53. Can be also this issue because the truth can be achieved only in a dispute :D

  54. debt relief says:

    Strange but true. Your resource is expensive. At least it could be sold for good money on its auction!…

  55. As usual, the webmaster posted correctly..!

  56. Thanks for all the answers:) In fact, learned a lot of new information. Dut I just didn`t figure out what is what till the end!…

  57. Debt Funding says:

    Very useful information on capital requirement. Really got so much to read and learn from here. Keep posting about financial management and strategic planning for business rise.

  58. i can't argue with you matt on this issue reseller kaos distro