From follower to leader: Taiwan’s financial sector accelerates digital transformation
Taiwan is undergoing a financial revolution, surging ahead in digital transformation, propelled by a convergence of global trends and local innovations. ...
by Karl Schmedders Published 23 May 2023 in Finance • 5 min read
The recent turmoil in the banking sector has led to calls for tougher rules to prevent failures like Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and Signature Bank, as well as the eleventh-hour rescue of First Republic by JPMorgan and UBS’s takeover of stricken rival Credit Suisse.
However, any moves to avert further banking shocks should be weighed against the wider implications for the US economy: a pullback in bank lending could ratchet up the cost of funding for businesses and households, potentially worsening the economic slowdown just as higher interest rates begin to bite.
There are five crucial steps to strengthen bank supervision while keeping credit flowing into the economy.
First, supervisors should toughen rules for mid-sized banks, especially those with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets, to ensure they can withstand a negative economic shock. But instead of strengthening supervision for smaller lenders, lawmakers and regulators have only made them weaker in recent years.
This was because of the belief that such rules curtailed bank lending, hurting the US economy, or that smaller institutions did not pose a systemic risk – a view that has been proven devastatingly wrong by the recent collapse of several such lenders.
In 2018, the US Congress watered down parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, laws implemented after the 2007-08 financial crisis, to exempt some lenders with assets of up to $250 billion from the strictest safeguards. Those include stress tests (an analysis to determine if a bank has enough capital to withstand a crisis) as well as capital and liquidity requirements.
In 2019 the Federal Reserve, the US central bank, took similar steps to weaken supervision for all but the largest lenders. The result was that many banks have loaded up on risky assets to boost their profits, ultimately sowing the seeds of their demise, and threatening the US economy.
Trust is essential to stability in the banking sector
“Banks have loaded up on risky assets to boost their profits, ultimately sowing the seeds of their demise, and threatening the US economy”
When SVB collapsed, these businesses faced insecurity over the fate of their cash, which sparked runs on other mid-sized banks across the US – deposit flight that was hastened by the ubiquity of social media and digital banking. This underlines how trust is essential to stability in the banking sector.
Raising the insurance threshold to $2.5 million for businesses would restore some of that trust, and cover what most companies need for payroll. Avoiding a blanket increase for all accounts, meanwhile, would help deposits maintain financial prudence while reducing the “moral hazard” problem of banks increasing exposure to risk because they don’t bear the full costs.
That problem can be further reduced by making lenders guarantee a portion of deposits themselves – the third step to balanced supervision.
That will require a significant increase in their equity funding, such as by reducing the share of profits paid out in dividends, or through a rights issue -offering more equity to existing shareholders at a discount. Such a move is likely to be deeply unpopular among banks, given that any capital raise will be costly. But it would give them skin in the game, and discourage them from taking excessive risks.
Fourth, we need to rethink “hold-to-maturity” accounting. This approach means that banks do not need to book any changes in the value of securities they own, so long as they have both the intent and ability to hold them to maturity.
The stock of securities designated as hold-to-maturity has ballooned since the Fed began raising interest rates in mid-2021 from near zero to just over 5% today. That’s because this cycle of monetary tightening caused a dramatic fall in the price of usually-safe government bonds and other long-duration securities (because newly issued bonds have higher yields).
But the losses were not realized on the balance sheets of many banks because their executives certified they would hold them to maturity.
Professor of Finance at IMD
Karl Schmedders is Professor of Finance at IMD. In his research, he applies numerical solution techniques to complex economic and financial models, shedding light on relevant market issues and industry problems. He is also Director of IMD’s new online certification course for structured investment products in partnership with Swiss company Leonteq, teaches in the Advanced Management Concepts (AMC) and Executive MBA programs, and is an advisor on International Consulting Projects in the MBA program.
15 April 2024 • by Jialu Shan, Yingfen Lin in Finance
Taiwan is undergoing a financial revolution, surging ahead in digital transformation, propelled by a convergence of global trends and local innovations. ...
10 April 2024 • by Fergal Mullen in Finance
It is time to challenge dogmas around fund and market size, a disdain of hardware investments, and the need to give feedback, argues Fergal Mullen, as he calls for a more thoughtful...
27 March 2024 • by Camilla Erencin, Simon J. Evenett, Pierre Ledan, Felix Reitz in Finance
An analysis of 21 economies between 2018 and 2022 finds that economic profit concentration is not limited to the ‘Magnificent Seven’ “tech” stocks – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla....
26 March 2024 • by Raphaël Grieco, Karl Schmedders in Finance
The founder of Ahoy Capital talks concentrated portfolios and the value of right-sized investments...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience