Blog Post

The Liikanen report – is size the elephant in the room?

Yesterday, the High-level Expert Group on reforming the structure of the EU banking sector chaired by the governor of Finland’s central bank Erkki Liikanen, in short the Liikanen report  issued its report. Apart from endorsing other currently discussed points such as common bank supervision and the resolution schemes, one of its main findings is that […]

By: Date: November 9, 2012 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

Yesterday, the High-level Expert Group on reforming the structure of the EU banking sector chaired by the governor of Finland’s central bank Erkki Liikanen, in short the Liikanen report  issued its report. Apart from endorsing other currently discussed points such as common bank supervision and the resolution schemes, one of its main findings is that ‘it is necessary to require legal separation of certain particularly risky financial activities from deposit-taking banks within a banking group’, which fits nicely with the Volcker rule in the US and the Vickers proposal in the UK. The main goals of legal separation are to limit a banking group’s incentives and ability to take excessive risks with insured deposits, to prevent the coverage of losses incurred in the trading entity by the funds of the deposit bank, and to reduce the interconnectedness between banks and the shadow banking system. The proposal argues that this would limit the stake of the taxpayer in the trading parts of banking groups, while making the socially most vital parts of banking groups safer and less connected to trading activities.

Andrew Haldane welcomes the proposal and thinks we should go even further. He argues that asset portfolios of large universal banks are simply too complex for investors to price. Unbundling complex banks activities into simpler parts would allow market discipline to reassess itself and would help solving the too-complex-to-price and too-big-to-fail problems. And too-complex-to-price or too-big-to-fail are indeed real problems. In Europe, the 20 largest banks hold almost around 50% of the total volume of banking assets. Recent work by the OECD suggests that the subsidies that these banks receive in form of implicit or explicit bail-out guarantees form a substantial part of their annual profit.

But there are factors complicating the type of structural regulation proposed, some of which are practical while others are more fundamental.  First, it is difficult to separate useless from useful risky activity. This is also a key issue in the implementation of the Volcker rule proposal – which comprises almost 300 pages. Banks will rightfully argue that some of these complex financial products actually serve a valid economic purpose. For example, derivatives can be used to hedge exposures and investment branches may help customers to tap wholesale funding markets. As a result a possible separation might come with numerous exceptions which make the whole legislation very complex. Apart from undermining simplicity, this will make it easier for markets to find ways to innovate around the structural regulation.

A more fundamental point is that it is not clear that legal separation reduces governments’ incentives to bail-out troubled banks and lowers systemic risk instead of shifting it to other parts of the banking sector. The reasons for saving troubled banks go beyond protecting insured depositors. For example, while ING reported in 2011 a ratio of customer deposits to total assets of roughly 50%, the ratio of insured deposits to total assets will be much lower, as already the level of deposits of ING alone is larger than total insured deposits in the Netherlands. Governments may want to protect such a bank under any circumstances, no matter where the losses originate from because of its sheer size of 960 billion euro (excluding insurance). It is not clear that a legal separation these super-large banks are credible. And the European financial system largely consists of such super-large banks – the 20 largest european banks hold almost 50% of all banking assets. The bottom line? If you want to reduce tax payers’ liabilities, reduce size. Governments can credibly commit to wind down small banks, but not these super-large ones.

From an economists’ point of view the question then becomes, should you prefer structural regulation (i.e. quantity regulation) or price regulation through higher capital requirements or high taxes for big banks. The discussion on whether to use quantity regulation or price regulation to address externalities goes back to a seminal paper in 1974 by Weitzman. He showed that uncertainty about compliance costs causes price and quantity controls to have different welfare implications. Price controls – in the form of taxes – fix the marginal cost of compliance and lead to uncertain levels of compliance, whereas quantity controls – in the form of minimum capital requirements – fix the level of compliance but result in uncertain marginal costs. The relative efficiency of price regulation versus quantity regulation now depends on the relative slopes of the marginal benefit and marginal cost curves. If the marginal cost curve is steeper than the marginal benefit curve, price regulation will be more efficient, whereas if the marginal benefit curve is steeper, quantity regulation will be more efficient. The fact that large banks create substantial systemic risk, while the empirical literature shows for these banks that economies of scale are limited, then suggest that some form of structural regulation may be warranted.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Guntram B. Wolff

The three dangers of Brexit

Guntram Wolff looks at the economic and geopolitical consequences if the "leave" vote wins the Brexit referendum on 23 June.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 30, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Lessons for the euro from early US monetary and financial history

The United States has a monetary union that many look to when considering the future of the EU. But how easy was it really to create such a union and what can Europe learn from the US process?

Speakers: Jeffry Frieden and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 25, 2016
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Blog Post

Guntram B. Wolff
European Parliament

The European Deposit Insurance Scheme

Statement prepared for the European Parliament’s ECON Committee Public Hearing of 23 May.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Parliamentary Testimonies Date: May 23, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jun
27
08:30

Britain and the EU after the referendum

No matter the result, the UK's referendum on EU membership will be an important moment for Britain and Europe. The days after the result will offer an opportunity to reflect on what has happened, and what has changed.

Speakers: Sylvie Goulard, André Sapir, Philipp Steinberg and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
Silvia Merler

Sovereign bond holdings in the euro area - the impact of QE

Since the announcement of the QE programme by the European Central Bank (ECB) on 22 January 2015, national central banks have been buying government and national agency bonds. In this post we look at the effect of QE on sectoral holdings of government bonds, based on our recently updated dataset.

By: Pia Hüttl and Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Grégory Claeys
Alvaro Leandro

Assessing the Juncker Plan after one year

With the Juncker Plan, the European Commission intends to support valuable risky projects by expanding the risk capacity of the EIB. But has the new European Fund for Strategic Investments really been used to finance 'additional' projects?

By: Grégory Claeys and Alvaro Leandro Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 17, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

European financing for the European refugee crisis

Protecting the EU's external borders is a shared task, which can be most effectively carried out if paid for with common funding. A tax on carbon combined with borrowing could fund refugee policy and also help the EU achieve its climate goals.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 11, 2016
Read article

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas
Pia Hüttl

Is Greek public debt unsustainable?

Greek public debt does not look sustainable if the country has to return to market borrowing at the end of the third bail-out programme, but could be sustainable if preferential ESM funding continues in the long-term. Our advice is to offer hope for Greece in the form of delayed fiscal adjustment toward a target of 2.5% of GDP primary balance and adopt various measures to ease the debt burden, for the benefit of both Greece and its official lenders.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Pia Hüttl Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 7, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
jaume

Northern Ireland and EU funds

EU funding for the UK has risen considerably since 2000, but funding predominantly goes to rural and less developed areas, meaning that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales receive more funding relative to their GDP than England.

By: Pia Hüttl and Jaume Martí Romero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 3, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Fighting corruption: from headlines to real impact

Despite recent efforts to tackle corruption there is not much evidence that these strategies are producing results. Why is this the case and what can we do to improve the situation?

Speakers: Carl Dolan, Mihaly Fazekas, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi and Alessio Terzi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 28, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Active labour market policies, what works?

How are Europe's labour markets performing, and what policies can best help them function?

Speakers: Alfonso Arpaia, Clyde Caruana, Grégory Claeys, Dan Finn, Regina Konle-Seidl, Alfred Mifsud, Godwin Mifsud, Edward Scicluna and Paul Swaim Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Mediterranean Conference Centre Triq l-Isptar, Valletta, Malta Date: April 27, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Understanding HM Treasury’s Brexit analysis

What’s at stake: The UK will hold a referendum on its membership of the EU on June 23rd 2016. Her Majesty’s Treasury released an assessment of the impact of Brexit finding that the economy would be between 3 and 7% smaller in 2030 if the UK left the EU than it would be if it stayed in.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 25, 2016
Load more posts