Banks, News

Bailed-Out Banks Were, Are, Will Always Be Riskier Than Non-Bailed-Out Banks

The banking system is a machine to transform risk: people put their money into a bunch of risk-free-ish-or-so-they-think banks, and those banks lend that money to risky businesses, and the banks make money on their ability to price that risk appropriately and/or on their ability to get a government bailout when they price it inappropriately. From this description you can rough out some boundary cases – a bank that loaned money only to risk-free businesses wouldn’t make very much money or serve very much purpose, while a bank that was a massively levered conduit for moving depositor money into Ponzi schemes would also not serve much social purpose – but that leaves a broad middle ground where banks need to evaluate risk carefully enough to avoid blowing up but not so carefully that they constrain promising but risky investment.

But that middle ground is where the action is so you get papers like this one, from the Bank for International Settlements, about one flavor of lending and two flavors of banks. The lending is syndicated lending, and the banks are “bailed out banks” and “not bailed out banks,” and here are some suggestive charts:

The restrained conclusion in the BIS paper is “Although the riskiness of loan signings started diminishing across the board in 2009, we do not find consistent evidence that rescued banks reduced their risk relatively more than non rescued banks during the crisis.” And in particular, in 2010, banks that had been bailed out still had more levered, higher-yield syndicated loans than banks that had avoided a bailout.

Which is I guess embarrassing for the governments that bailed them out only to allow them to continue gambling crazily? Maybe. The Fed already ran a similar exercise and got a similar result for U.S. banks, but was pretty blasé about it, pointing out:

This may reflect the conflicting influences of government ownership on bank behavior. Although TARP money was given to increase bank stability and reduce incentives to take excessive risks, it was also given with the understanding that the funds would be used to expand lending during a period of increased risk. These two objectives have an opposing influence on bank risk-taking ….

And that seems pretty applicable here: if you get a bailout from your government, that government would prefer that you become solvent, but it would also prefer that you keep lending to borrowers to keep your country’s economy humming, and there’s no a priori reason to think that one desire would dominate the other. Ponder, if you will, Ed DeMarco.

The other obvious thing to take from those charts is: before the crisis, bailed out banks were riskier than non-bailed-out banks. That’s pretty intuitive – if you make riskier loans when times are good, you end up in a worse place when they turn bad all of a sudden. But there are some fun counterintuitive footnotes. Like:

Despite being riskier*, the banks that later got bailed out traded in 2001-2006 as though they were a bit safer than the ones that later didn’t. One lazy tendentious reading of that is that markets knew which banks were too big to fail and priced their credit risk accordingly: if you’ve got a promise of government support, you can take more risks and be more levered and still be a safer credit than someone who doesn’t. If “a bank is any entity that can issue liabilities that are widely accepted as near-perfect substitutes for whatever trades as money despite being highly levered,” then the wide acceptance of the liabilities is doing more work than the quality of the levered assets.

But this was my favorite chart, though I didn’t really understand it:

The “portfolio pricing error” is the “Difference between the observed spread over Libor, and the spread predicted by a linear regression incorporating observable loan features (size, maturity, guarantees, collateral, facility purpose and type), borrower characteristics (sector, rating, first time borrower) and the state of the market (total volumes, level of interest rates).”** Negative means the loan was underpriced (too low a spread), positive that it was overpriced (too high a spread). The non-rescued banks were all over the map, but the rescued banks were always negative. Banks that later got bailed out didn’t just take more risk than those that didn’t, they also systematically mispriced that risk.

What does that mean? Two related possibilities come to mind. In one, some banks were just less competent than others, and the incompetent ones needed bailouts while the competent ones did not. That is an unobjectionable theory: few bailed-out banks choked primarily on syndicated corporate loans, but perhaps syndicated-loan incompetence was a symptom of firmwide problems.

The other theory starts from the intuition that few risks are more worthwhile to misprice than syndicated loans: extending credit at too-low rates is the price of admission to all sorts of investment banking business. If your business is, like, lending to businesses, then it behooves you to price those loans appropriately, since if you don’t then you might run into trouble. But if you lend to businesses only as a way to get in the door to conduct your real business of investment banking – and the things, like securitization and trading, that often come with it – then you have no problem underpricing your loans. Because on the one hand those loans aren’t your profit center: the riskier investment banking businesses are. And on the other hand, if you do get blown up – on syndicated loans or, more likely, otherwise – and you’re a big and universal and interconnected enough bank, well, then you can confidently expect a bailout.

Public recapitalisations and bank risk: evidence from loan spreads and leverage [BIS]

* One one metric, the syndicated loan portfolio. This is a suggestive toy model, not a real one that can prove stuff.

** So, whatever. Pricing loans is an art not a regression etc. etc. But the aggregate data is interesting.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

55 Responses to “Bailed-Out Banks Were, Are, Will Always Be Riskier Than Non-Bailed-Out Banks”

  1. Guest says:

    too early. Ya, ya I know, typical matt post. But seriously too early.

  2. All of us says:

    "…though I didn’t really understand it"

    We feel your pain matt

  3. guest says:

    Matt, you are the Magic School Bus of finance.

  4. Dow30Thou says:

    So, risky banks are still riskier than non-risky banks…can't say I'm shocked to find this out. Seems like pre-TARP & post-TARP analysis would be more valuable.

  5. EAS Sponsor says:

    I've been here for a few weeks. I'm starting to realize Bess provides the humor and Matt provides the _______

  6. Kick in the Guestes says:

    I'd love a streaming video feed of matt writing. The giggles at what he's just written. The occasional sip of marg. The coy looks at Bess seeking her approval.

  7. Guestido says:

    Bess, Did you guys ever end up hiring another columnist?

    -Nothing against Matt, I'm Just Curious

  8. I am Phoenix says:

    My University of Phoenix education did not prepare me for a Matt Levine article

  9. Guest says:

    This was an awesome post. Thanks, Matt.

  10. guest says:

    Good one.

  11. Guest says:


  12. güest says:

    charts in line with text = humans
    footnotes in line with text = ZOMG MAYA 2012 END OF THE WORLD ZOMBIE BRAINZ

  13. love this says:

    I came here expecting something else, but this entertained me regardless. Enlightening stuff!

  14. Funskip says:

    This information is very well-written. Thank you for such valuable content. This is the quality of writing I like to read. It makes me think about it for a while.

  15. zy3VLs Im grateful for the article post.Thanks Again. Want more.

  16. Thanks again for the article.Really thank you! Will read on…

  17. limo toronto says:

    Sorry for the off-topic, could you tell where I can get such a nice pattern for my blog ?!…

  18. Bowtrol says:

    A round of applause for your blog.Thanks Again. Want more.

  19. Great, thanks for sharing this article post.Thanks Again. Want more.

  20. Im thankful for the blog article.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  21. I serched through the internet and got here. What a wonderful invention of the mankind. With the help of the network you communicate, learn, read !… That helped us to get acquainted!…

  22. Counseling says:

    I appreciate you sharing this article.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

  23. I really enjoy the blog.Really thank you! Awesome.

  24. Thanks-a-mundo for the article post.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  25. Really enjoyed this article post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.

  26. This is interestingly just the thing I’ve been hunting for! Wonderful and cheers!

  27. Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is very informative. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  28. A big thank you for your post.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  29. xxx says:

    Fantastic blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

  30. Really appreciate you sharing this blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  31. stilettos says:

    Major thankies for the blog post.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  32. Really informative blog article.Much thanks again. Much obliged.

  33. Major thanks for the article.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  34. Wow, great blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  35. Great blog article.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  36. gay single says:

    Im grateful for the blog post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

  37. Hey there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is very informative. I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  38. Great, thanks for sharing this blog post.Thanks Again. Great.

  39. 52. “The road will be overcome by that person, who goes.” I wish you never stopped and be creative – forever..!

  40. toe by toe says:

    Awesome info and superbly written. Keep up the good stuff!

  41. Verry wonderful website and beneficial! I think i will occur back again just one day !SD

  42. Say, you got a nice article.Much thanks again.

  43. Hey cutie from a girlreader maintain the stupendous website

  44. Thanks again for the blog article.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  45. Edidn`t think about that. I’ll tell my mother, she won`t believe it..!

  46. I came here expecting something else, but this interested me regardless. Enthusing stuff!

  47. says:

    This is funnily enough just the thing I’ve been searching for! Fantastic and thanks very much!

  48. I didnt seek this, but I really like this, found it inspiring! Keep up the great work!

  49. Needed to put you this very small observation to finally say thanks a lot again for your lovely methods you have documented on this page. It has been generous with you to provide openly precisely what a few individuals could possibly have marketed for an ebook to generate some money for themselves, most importantly since you might well have tried it in the event you desired. Those guidelines additionally acted to be a fantastic way to comprehend other people online have the same fervor the same as my very own to figure out very much more with reference to this problem. I’m certain there are millions of more pleasant periods in the future for those who start reading your blog.

  50. love this says:

    Bonjour from across the ocean! This is just what I was searching for, and you wrote it nicely. Thanks

  51. ctoolsee says:

    That first sentence is the most accurate thing I've ever read.

  52. sohbet says:

    Chair, I will bail out strippers. The rest of the argument becomes irrelevant because the world will be a kinder happier place with more strippers. And, hence, the U.S. shall maintain world leadership in porn by preserving the efficiencies of a an