Structural bank regulation initiatives: approaches and implications

By Leonardo Gambacorta and Adrian Van Rixtel

BIS Working Papers No 412
April 2013

http://www.bis.org/publ/work412.htm

The paper examines the basic rationale and features of the proposals adopted to separate specific investment and commercial banking activities (Volcker rule, Vickers and Liikanen proposals). In particular, it focuses on the likely implications of such initiatives for: (i) financial stability and systemic risk; (ii) banks' business models; and (iii) the international activities of global banks.

Keywords: regulation, bank business models, systemic risk, economies of scale, economies of scope, too big to fail

JELclassification: G21, G28

Excerpts:

The Volcker rule is narrow in scope but otherwise quite strict. It is narrow in that it seeks to carve out only proprietary trading while allowing market-making activities on behalf of customers. Moreover, it has several exemptions, including for transactions in specific instruments, such as US Treasury and agency securities. It is strict in that it forbids the coexistence of such trading activities and other banking activities in different subsidiaries within the same group. It similarly prevents investments in, and sponsorship of, entities that could expose institutions to equivalent risks, such as hedge funds and private equity funds. That said, it imposes very few additional restrictions on the transactions of banking organisations with other financial firms more generally (eg such as through constraints on lending or funding among them). However, it is worth remembering that the current US legislation does constrain the activities of depository institutions.

The Liikanen Report proposals are somewhat broader in scope but less strict.  They are broader because they seek to carve out both proprietary trading and market-making, without drawing a distinction between the two. They are less strict because they allow these activities to coexist with other banking business within the same group as long as these are carried out in separate subsidiaries. The proposals limit contagion within the group by requiring, in particular, that the subsidiaries be self-sufficient in terms of capital and liquidity and that transactions between the legal entities take place on market terms. Just like the Volcker rule, the proposals do not envisage significant restrictions between the protected banking unit and other financial firms, except that they require the separation of exposures to entities such as hedge funds and special investment vehicles (SIVs) in the trading entity.

The Vickers Commission proposals are even broader in scope but have a more articulated approach to strictness. They are broader in that they exclude a larger set of banking business from the protected entity, including also securities underwriting and secondary market purchases of loans and other financial instruments. A very narrow set of retail banking business must be within the protected entity (retail deposit-taking, overdrafts to individuals and loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)); and another set may be conducted within it (eg some other forms of retail and corporate banking, including ancillary operations to hedge risks to support them). The approach to strictness is more articulated because it involves both intragroup and inter-firm restrictions (the “ring fence”). As in the Liikanen Report, protected activities can coexist with others in separate subsidiaries within the same group but subject to intragroup constraints that are somewhat tighter, including on the size of the linkages.3 Moreover, a series of restrictions limit the extent to which the banking unit within the ring fence can interact with other financial sector firms. An in-depth exploration of the economic underpinnings of the reforms is provided in Vickers (2012).


Conclusions

A number of jurisdictions are considering whether to implement regulations that impose restrictions on the scope of banking activity, or have already taken concrete steps towards doing so. These initiatives include the so-called Volcker rule in the United States, the proposals of the Vickers Commission in the United Kingdom and the European Commission’s Liikanen Report. Draft legislation on structural bank regulation is underway in Germany and France.

The proposals for structural bank regulation break with the conventional wisdom that the banking sector’s efficiency and stability stands only to gain from the increased diversification of banks’ activities. Rather, structural bank regulation sees the combination of commercial banking and certain types of capital market-related activities as a source of systemic risk. The common element of all the proposals is to restrict universal banking by drawing a line somewhere between “commercial” and “investment” banking businesses. Hence, the various initiatives on structural bank regulation aim at changing how banks organise themselves.

Structural bank regulation initiatives are designed to reduce systemic risk in several ways. First, they can shield the institutions carrying out the protected activities from losses incurred elsewhere. Second, they can prevent any subsidies supporting the protected activities (eg central bank lending facilities and deposit guarantee schemes) from cutting the cost of risk-taking and inducing moral hazard in other business lines. Third, they can reduce the complexity and possibly the size of banking organisations, making them easier to manage, more transparent to outside stakeholders and easier to resolve.

However, the initiatives also raise some challenges. One risk is that banks may respond to the reforms by shifting activities beyond the perimeter of consolidated regulation. In fact, one reason why the Liikanen Report opts for subsidiarisation rather than full separation is to reduce this risk. Migration would be a concern if these activities proved to be systemic in nature.

Second, structural regulation may, through various channels, affect the international activities of universal banks in particular. For example, disincentives for global banking may be created by initiatives seeking to protect depositors and cut the costs of the official safety net within the home country jurisdiction. Moreover, ring-fencing and subsidiarisation may constrain the allocation of capital and liquidity within a globally operating banking group. Through these channels, structural regulation may contribute to a fragmentation of banking markets along national lines.

A third risk is that structural regulation may create business models that are, in fact, more difficult to supervise and resolve. For example, resolution strategies may be rather complex to design and implement for globally operating banks that have to face increasing heterogeneity in permitted business models at the national level.