Bank capital: Foundations of jelly
A lawsuit in Germany highlights the flaws of hybrid securities
“MORE capital, better capital” has been the chant of central bankers and regulators, as they strive to rebuild the banking system on more solid foundations. The debate about how much capital banks should hold against unexpected losses has captured much attention. But a lawsuit in Germany raises equally pressing questions about the sorts of capital banks hold.
The thinking behind the regulatory push for simplicity and solidity is that over the past few decades banks have been allowed to build complex capital structures made from inferior materials. The best sort of capital to ensure a stable banking system is equity, because it directly absorbs losses and can thus cushion against systemic shocks. It is, however, expensive, so banks have sought to dilute it with cheap fillers, such as the delightfully-named “hybrid capital” and other fancy instruments. One reason for their popularity with the banks that issued them was that they paid fixed interest, which was tax-deductible. Regulators, for their part, took comfort from the fact that hybrids were a bit like equity in that payments could be stopped to preserve capital should a bank run into trouble. ...
