1

If Banks Win, Do You Win, Too?

Which of these competing arguments do you believe? You might think that banks should stockpile bigger cushions of capital so that taxpayers will not have to bail them out during the next financial crisis. Alternately, you may believe that higher reserves mean less money for banks to lend out, money that could lubricate the wheels of commerce. Banks generally believe the second proposition and there is word today the view of the banks is winning.

In a fascinating development reported by the Financial Times, international bank regulators are expected to ease off the new capital requirements that were supposed to be phased in. A bank industry group is playing the powerful jobs card. The Institute for International Finance says new bank rules set up to protect the banking system after the last collapse could ultimately cost 7.5 million jobs worldwide. Lower economic growth because of an increased cost of borrowing is the argument. Critics say banks without enough reserves on hand to handle a crisis is in itself destabilizing to the world economy.

About the author

David Brancaccio is the host of Marketplace Morning Report. Follow David on Twitter @DavidBrancaccio and @MarketplaceTech
Ramon d'Immensio's picture
Ramon d'Immensio - Sep 6, 2011

Fat. It is the buffer against bad times. If you fail to prepare for hard times you externalize your risk & someone else subsidizes you or your bank. When bankers, etc. are willing to forego the corporate vail & assume personal responsibility & the bank takes out adequate insurance I'll consider allowing them to reduce the security. The argument made here is overly simplistic to be enticing. All either/or arguments really come down to shifting risks & burdens. Shame on you Brancaccio you know better.