Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

Robin  Greenwood; Samuel Gregory Hanson; Jeremy C. Stein; Adi   Sunderam

Article | Brookings Papers on Economic Activity | Fall 2017

Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

by Robin Greenwood, Samuel Gregory Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein and Adi Sunderam

Abstract

We propose three core principles that should inform the design of bank capital regulation. First, wherever possible, multiple constraints on the minimum level of equity capital should be consolidated into a single constraint. This helps to avoid a distortionary situation where different constraints bind for different banks performing the same activity. Second, while a regulatory framework that relies primarily on minimum capital ratios is appropriate for normal times, such a framework is inadequate in the wake of a large negative shock to the system. Following an adverse shock, it becomes critical to emphasize dynamic resilience, which involves forcing banks to actively recapitalize—i.e., regulation needs to focus on getting banks to raise new dollars of equity capital, rather than just maintaining their capital ratios. Third, the best way to deal with the inevitable gaming of any set of ex ante capital rules is not to propose further rules, but rather to allow the regulator sufficient flexibility to address unforeseen contingencies ex post. We use these principles to suggest a number of modifications to the current set of risk-based capital requirements, to the leverage ratio, and to the Federal Reserve’s stress-testing framework.

Keywords: Banks and Banking; Capital; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Banking Industry;

Format: Print

Read Now

Citation:

Greenwood, Robin, Samuel Gregory Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein, and Adi Sunderam. "Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Fall 2017). (Internet Appendix Here.)

Using historical data on post-war financial crises around the world, we show that crises are substantially predictable. The combination of rapid credit and asset price growth over the prior three years, whether in the nonfinancial business or the household sector, is associated with about a 40% probability of entering a financial crisis within the next three years. This compares with a roughly 7% probability in normal times, when neither credit nor asset price growth has been elevated. Our evidence cuts against the view that financial crises are unpredictable “bolts from the sky” and points toward the Kindleberger-Minsky view that crises are the byproduct of predictable, boom-bust credit cycles. The predictability we document favors macro-financial policies that “lean against the wind” of credit market booms.

Drawing on lessons from the 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and a simple conceptual framework, we examine the response of U.S. bank regulators to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the current regulatory strategy of “watchful waiting”—the same strategy that was used during the early stages of the GFC—poses unnecessary risks to the financial system and broader U.S. economy. Instead, promoting an early recapitalization of the banking system, by stopping dividends and by encouraging new equity issues, would be a more prudent way to manage the vulnerabilities the pandemic has created. We close by suggesting additional measures that we believe regulators should take in both the short and long run.

Faculty & Research

Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors