The most important economic debate of 2010 will be how to reform the financial sector to make it more stable. Many of the most popular ideas — reducing leverage, raising capital requirements, even taxing financial transactions — rest on the principle that smaller banks support a more stable financial sector.
I just wrote a blog post defending a bank tax that could (a) shrink large banks and (b) encourage customers to switch to smaller banks. A very smart acquaintance in finance (who asked that he remain anonymous) took issue with the underlying argument. In our reflexive hatred of Too-Big-To-Fail banks, he said, we’ve fetishized Too-Small-to-Survive banks. Here is a cleaned-up transcript of our (very interesting!) conversation over Gchat:
Dr. Gonzo: Regarding your bank tax piece: Making the banks smaller isn’t sufficient. The small banks have been a disaster as well, and a huge drain on the FDIC’s funding.
Derek: That’s an interesting point.
The FDIC funds itself through bank assesments. So it’s not necessarily
the tax payer’s problem. But the FDIC will prob get assistance at some
point if these conditions persist.
Derek: Are you saying bigger banks are less likely to fail?
I think the gist is this: Bigger means better access to capital
markets and in general more diversified assets and sources of funding. So big institutions can
take big hits without failing. But when they do, the costs are enormous
and can be destabilizing.
community bank in kansas. Your assets are probably all local loans. If your town has a bad property market, you’re done for.
the funding side, honestly, I have no clue, but I doubt that some local
bank in Kansas has access to the capital markets in the same manner and
scope that Goldman or Merrill does. So if a small local bank needs emergency funding
it’s going to be tough. Goldman needs emergency funding, and they call
Warren Buffet. He writes them a $5 billion check.
do
you think it’s misguided to fetishize the benefits of small banks? Or
is yours more of a Goldilocks position. That small banks lack the
larger banks’ access, but there’s a Too-Big-To-Fail tipping point that
we want to
find ways to avoid, or at least regulate much more effectively?
But I definitely think the small is better thing is pretty unfounded
and runs contrary to common sense, specifically considering
diversification. I mean, 2008 was all about market risk and assets
hitting the floor at the same time. But just because diversification
didn’t work as well as it should, doesn’t mean that it’s not useful.
is definitely fetishized, and IMHO, not based in any objective theory
or evidence. It’s just an aesthetic people like to cling to.
Salmon
aren’t saying: Let’s regulate Goldman until it devolves into a local
Kansas community bank. They’re saying: There are some taxes that could
a) discourage hyperaggressive betting and b) discourage banks from
growing so big that the government has no choice but to bail them out.
off most of these “banks” are not banks. The ones on the FDIC list,
those are banks. They take deposits, make loans, etc.
Goldman and Merrill and so forth, they’re money centers, financial
intermediaries. Some of them have bank subsidiaries like Citi, but for
the most part advice on transactions, broker not only ordinary securities but also funding for businesses and hedge funds, act as custodians for securities, and and in some cases, make markets by
buying and selling instruments like a bookie. It is really the last three functions that make them so
important to the financial system.
So in general I would recommend that we get our vocabulary straight, and then we can have a more precise conversation about what behaviors we’re trying to change.
