While the "Leaders" piece on the resurgence of American investment banks vis-a-vis their European cousins/competitors is fascinating, as is this "Twilight of the Gods" piece on the leaner future of investment banking, it is the article on new banking regulations and their impact on the dynamics of international finance that has most intrigued me.
Entitled "Regulation: The bite is worse than the bark," the article starts by summarizing the atmosphere surrounding new and proposed banking regulations, using a quote from the current chairman of UBS, Axel Weber. In an interview, Mr. Weber stated, "The mood among investment banks that I talk to...is such that they expect that the regulation is over, they expect that they will be able to keep growing their balance-sheets, that they will be growing bigger than ever. The mood among the regulators I talk with is more like 'we haven’t even started.'"
While Swiss banks such as UBS and Credit Suisse have been hit particularly hard by newer, stricter regulations, Mr. Weber is uniquely qualified to comment upon the sentiment on both sides of the regulatory divide. And his comments are particularly troubling for international banks operating in America--not just the Swiss, but British and Germany firms as well.
But first, an overview of the three primary options available to regulators:
1) Higher capital and liquidity requirements;
2) Restrictions on bank activities such as trading for their own profit;
3) Structural changes such as forcing banks to “ring-fence” their retail banks from their trading businesses or to reorganise global businesses into national subsidiaries.
All banks are set to be subject to at least one of the three forms of corrective medicine, but the bigger and more complex banks likely face at least two if not all three forms of regulations in the near future.
I'll save the technicalities and complexities of Basel 3 and the Volcker Rule for a future blog post; but suffice it to say that while the new rules will likely create a more stable financial system, they are also having unintended consequences for international investment banks.
While none of the above regulations pose a deep, mortal threat to the future of America's biggest investment banking firms, The Economist reports that two further sets of rules being discussed "could dash the hopes of Europe’s remaining big investment-banking contenders, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, of being able to go on challenging the dominance of America’s biggest banks."
The first is "a proposal to separate investment banking from retail banking," which in Britain could mean the construction of a Chinese Wall of sorts between the retail-banking arm and the investment-banking division of a bank. Continental Europe, meanwhile, "is debating variations of a plan by Erkki Liikanen, the governor of Finland’s central bank, to separate banks’ trading operations." Both potential rules would mean an increase in funding and operation costs for Europe's banks, and would deter big global banks from operating in Britain or Europe.
America, meanwhile "has made it clear it wants to be in the game," and it has been American banks that have led the aggressive resurgence of Wall Street and fueled overall banking sector recovery. But in Washington, DC, a second set of regulations is on the drawing board that could deal a severe blow to the American operations of European-based global banks, by forcing big foreign firms to establish local holding companies for their American subsidiary operations. This would most obviously and immediately impact Deutsche Bank and Barclays, two of the leading European banks which have both avoided the new capital requirements by moving assets and deregistering their American holding companies.
As The Economist explains, the proposed regulations on foreign banks make perfect sense to American regulators: "if a big European bank collapses on their doorstep, they do not want to have to ask its home country for money." However, an executive at Morgan Stanley has estimated that Deutsche Bank has a hidden capital deficit of $20 billion in its American business that would be exposed by the new regulations. Barclays is in a similar situation.
 |
| Image taken from blog Special FX for Wizards |
The bottom line? "If other regulators were to follow its [America's] lead and force all foreign banks to hold capital and liquidity locally, the era of financial globalisation would be over." And the end of global finance is something I don't think even the most gung-ho regulator truly wants. Personally, as someone interested in a career in international finance and who is considering working at a firm such as Barclays or DB after graduation, financial globalization is certainly something I hope continues for a long, long time.
You can read the article in full at this link: Regulation: The bite is worse than the bark. Feel free to leave your thoughts and comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment