Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Sighs of relief heard from the bankers' bunkers

By Adam Creighton - posted Tuesday, 20 September 2011


He therefore reckons capital ratios up to 20 per cent of risk-weighted assets should be mandatory, about twice what Australia's big four banks now maintain. The commission also recommended that retail banking be ''ring-fenced'', meaning basic deposit-taking and personal and business lending would be strictly separate from banks' riskier wholesale and investment divisions.

Retail banks could still be part of larger financial groups, but ''ring-fencing'' would better align the costs of borrowing with the riskiness of the borrowed funds' use. British depositors' money would, for instance, no longer be available to clog the financial system with junk American loans.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, indicated this week that he agreed with the recommendations. Yes, Australia avoided the worst of the GFC. Not a dollar of public money was spent to save the banks, notwithstanding the government lent the banks its AAA credit rating to help them borrow overseas.

Advertisement

But absence of a financial crisis in Australia does not mean the probability of a crisis was, or is, any different from in Britain. Should Australian house prices, say, fall as they have done in the US, and unemployment to rise significantly, Australia's banks - and, therefore, taxpayers - would be on the hook. APRA should consider the Vickers proposals as well.

To its credit, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will introduce the Basel III changes in Australia by 2016 rather than 2019. And the Australian government has announced it will slash its deposit guarantee to $250,000 from $1 million, mitigating public support for banks.

Australia's banking system resembles Britain's: a handful of large retail banks dominate and offer investment banking services on the side. And Australian taxpayers also provide a huge implicit subsidy, worth billions annually, to Australia's major banks.

At a minimum, APRA should avail itself of the scope within Basel III to make capital ratios permanently higher. It should not kid itself that it can tweak capital ratios according to the ''state of the economic cycle''. The International Monetary Fund was lauding banks' risk management in the lead-up to the financial crisis.

Higher local capital ratios would help competition among financial institutions. As the implicit subsidy to big banks dwindled, their ability to borrow more cheaply than smaller banks - even when their capital ratios are lower - would fall away.

Tighter capital requirements would cut banks' earnings in the short run (more debt boosts returns for banks as much as it does for any business), and probably push up the cost of loans a little too. But these are small prices to pay for financial stability.

Advertisement

In an ideal world, banks would be subject to no government regulation at all. They could manage their own risk, and depositors would choose who to trust with their money.

Alas, the GFC showed that it is impossible for democratic governments to let large financial institutions fail, however much they should. It is a government's job to free taxpayers from unwittingly providing unfair, distortionary, and imprudent subsidies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published in The Age on September 16, 2011.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Adam Creighton is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Adam Creighton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy