|
The stress test may be causing more harm than good. Why? Regulators should
always have a good assessment of the health of financial institutions. If there
are deficiencies in the process applied to regulate banks, then the process
for the system as a whole should be reviewed.
Instead, what we have is an ad-hoc test put together to gauge the health of
banks. A regulator came up with the idea that counterparty risk is bad, hence,
banks that deal with a lot of counterparties ought to have a greater capital
cushion. This may sound good on paper, but has unintended consequences. Who
says that the formula applied by the regulator is the right one? Does the regulator
understand the appropriate methodology to weigh all the risks of the bank?
It seems to us that the guidelines published in the government's white paper
on the stress test were somewhat crude. Specifically, it may create an incentive
for banks to cut low-risk relationships and focus on riskier ones. The reason?
The riskier relationships tend to be more profitable (unless the counterparty
fails); so if a bank must cut back its exposure regardless, why not cut from
the boring and less profitable "bread and butter" businesses?
Make no mistake about it: banks may still require more capital and there are
more challenges ahead. In our opinion, an arbitrary stress test does not resolve
the issues at hand and may only serve to create new problems. What financial
institutions - indeed all investors and businesses - need is clarity surrounding
regulations and taxation. In order to plan ahead, it is destructive for policy
makers to constantly change the rules of the game.
Obviously, regulators need to do their job, but there will always be market
participants who are a step ahead of the game. Rather than being outraged every
time someone abuses the system - and such abuse will always happen as greed
is part of human nature - we need to provide incentives for such greed to be
channeled in such a way that we do not have a global meltdown when things get
out of hand. A way to achieve this may be to let the market decide on the total
capitalization of financial institutions and thus the ability of those institutions
to lend.
Merk
Insights provide the Merk Perspective on currencies, global imbalances,
the trade deficit, the socio-economic impact of the U.S. administration's
policies and more.
Don't miss an Insight:
Sign up for our Newsletter
The Archive:
Read past Merk
Insights
One way to have the private sector determine how much a financial institution
may lend is to require financial institutions to periodically raise money.
If, for example, financial institutions were required to issue subordinated
debt, representing 10% of all loans extended, the private sector would rein
in any institutions that don't pass the free market's natural "stress test" by
adjusting the available capital. If the cost of borrowing were too high for
a financial institution, it would need to shrink its loan portfolio. Such subordinated
loans could be staggered, so that refinancing is required on a periodic basis.
If, say, every year, one tenth of subordinated debt were to be refinanced,
it would allow an orderly shrinking of the bank's balance sheet should market
conditions warrant.
We all have a stake in this. Our Senior Economic Adviser and former St. Louis
Fed President William
Poole has been an advocate of this concept for some time. We urgently need
a discussion of market-based solutions to rein in the regulatory circus that
is potentially creating more harm than good.
Healthy financial institutions are needed to foster economic growth. We need
to ensure money flows from weak hands to strong hands. In our opinion, present
policies achieve exactly the opposite, as taxpayer money is used to prop up
bad institutions at the expense of stronger business models. To reverse this,
we need to get the government out of the micromanagement of these firms. We
need to put mechanisms in place to allow money to be drained from these weaker
institutions without jeopardizing the financial system as a whole. This may
be achieved by phasing in a market-based approach to the funding of financial
institutions.
On
a separate note, we will host numerous events at the Las Vegas Money Show (May
12 - 14). Please come and visit us - we would love to see you there (click here for
more information and to register); not only will we discuss the economy and
the dollar, we will also provide a first preview of "SustainableWealth",
a book written by Chief Investment Officer Axel Merk. SustainableWealth,
due in bookstores this fall, is about understanding how the greater economic
universe works, how that may affect your finances, and how to manage those
finances to seek financial stability. Click here to
be notified when the book becomes available.
We manage the Merk Hard and Asian Currency Funds, no-load mutual funds seeking
to protect against a decline in the dollar by investing in baskets of hard
and Asian currencies, respectively. To learn more about the Funds, or to subscribe
to our free newsletter, please visit www.merkfund.com.
|