Banks should double their capital says regulator
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Banks should more than double the minimum levels of capital they are required to hold to protect against shocks if they want the regulatory noose to be loosened, a member of the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee said last night.
In a speech in London, Robert Jenkins said "the best solution" if banks wanted their burden to be lightened would be to make themselves so strong that the worst economic shocks could be handled with relative ease.
Mr Jenkins said: "Let me suggest a deal – one which I stress is not in my gift and which I propose in my private capacity only. How about a moratorium on all new regulation followed by a review and rollback of the rule book. In exchange, all banks everywhere would be required to raise their tangible equity capital to 20 per cent of assets."
"We all agree that too many bankers got it wrong in the past and will get it wrong in the future," he said. "We acknowledge that too many regulators got it wrong in the past and will get it wrong in the future. We agree that the taxpayer should never again be stuck with the tab for our collective failures. And you now know that higher capital requirements need harm neither the economy nor bank shareholder."
Mr Jenkins, a former fund manager, said this was because the market was now "attaching relatively higher valuations to the relatively less leveraged (banks)".
"In short, higher capital requirements are compatible with economic growth and are compatible with shareholder value – they just are not compatible with non-risk-adjusted banker pay," he argued.
He went on: "Is banking regulation too tough? No. Is the demand for higher capital damaging? No. And are regulations too numerous? Maybe – but there is a potential solution, should the industry and body politic wish to pursue it."
Mr Jenkins pointed out that bankers would complain about regulation however light it is, citing an industry quote fulminating about the "remorseless rise in regulation" being a threat, from 2005, three years before the financial crisis.
The US economist Laurence Kotlikoff has said that all banks should be required by law to hold deposits in cash mutual funds to ensure their safety
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments