New Bailouts Prove ‘Too Big to Fail’ Is Alive and Well | WSJ

By Neel Kashkari:

Three strikeouts in four at bats would be barely acceptable in baseball. For a policy designed to prevent taxpayer bailouts, it’s an undeniable defeat. In the past few weeks, four European bank failures have demonstrated that a signature feature of the postcrisis regulatory regime simply cannot protect the public. There’s no need for more evidence: “bail-in debt” doesn’t prevent bailouts. It’s time to admit this and move to a simpler solution that will work: more common equity.

Bail-in debt was envisioned as an elegant solution to the “too big to fail” problem. When a bank ran into trouble, regulators could trigger a conversion of debt to equity. Bondholders would take the losses. The firm would be recapitalized. Taxpayers would be spared……

The problem is that it rarely works this way in real life. On June 1, the Italian government and European Union agreed to bail out Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena with a €6.6 billion infusion, while protecting some bondholders who should have taken losses. Then on June 24, Italy decided to use public funds to protect bondholders of two more banks, Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca, with up to €17 billion of capital and guarantees. The one recent case in which taxpayers were spared was in Spain, when Banco Popular failed on June 6……

The Minneapolis Fed President has hit the nail on the head. Conversion of bondholders to equity may be legally plausible but psychologically damaging. Similar to money market funds “breaking the buck’, conversion of bondholders to equity in a troubled bank would traumatize markets. Causing widespread panic and damage far in excess of the initial loss. Actions of Italian authorities show how impractical conversion is. Especially when one considers that the affected banks were less than one-tenth the size of behemoths like JPMorgan [JPM].

Banks need to raise more equity capital.

Source: New Bailouts Prove ‘Too Big to Fail’ Is Alive and Well – WSJ

At last, some sensible commentary on bank levy | MacroBusiness

From Leith van Onselen:

……The bank levy helps internalise some of the cost of the extraordinary public support that the big banks receive from taxpayers via the Budget’s implicit guarantee (which provides a two-notch improvement in the banks’ credit ratings), the RBA’s Committed Liquidity Facility, the implementation of deposit insurance, and the ability to issue covered bonds. All of these supports have helped significantly lower the banks’ cost of funding and given them the ability to derive super profits.

As noted by Chris Joye on Friday, the 0.06% bank levy is also very ‘cheap’, since it would only recover around one-third of the funding advantage that the big banks receive via taxpayer support:

“If the two notch government support assumption is removed from these bonds, their cost would jump by 0.17 per cent annually to 1.11 per cent above cash based on the current pricing of identical securities. So the majors are actually only paying 35 per cent of the true cost of their too-big-to-fail subsidy…

Requiring banks to pay a price for the implicit too-big-to-fail subsidy is universally regarded as best practice because it minimises the significant moral hazards of having government-backed private sector institutions that can leverage off their artificially low cost of capital to engage in imprudent risk-taking behaviour.”

Again, what better way to internalise some of the cost of the government’s support than extract a modest return to taxpayers via the 6 basis point levy on big bank liabilities?

The Turnbull Government’s unexpected bank levy announcement is the single best thing to come out of the 2017-18 Budget. It deserves widespread support from the community and parliament.

I have my doubts that the new bank levy is a step in the right direction. Most observers would agree that the banks are getting a free ride at the taxpayers expense, but this is not a solution.

Remember that the Commonwealth Treasury is not an insurance fund. And the risk premiums (levy) collected will go to fill a hole in the current budget, not to build up a fund against the future risk of a banking default.

There is no way to avoid it. Australian banks are under-capitalized, with about 6% capital against unweighted risk exposure (leverage ratio). Charging a bank levy does not solve this. Raising (share) capital does.

The levy merely provides the banks with another argument against raising more capital. I would much rather see a levy structured in such a way that it penalizes banks who do not carry sufficient capital, creating an incentive for them to raise further equity.

Neel Kashkari, President of the Minneapolis conducted a study to determine how much capital banks need to carry to avoid relying on taxpayer bailouts. The conclusion was that banks need about 15% capital against (unweighted) risk exposure. Too-big-to-fail banks require slightly more: a leverage ratio of about 18%.

Source: At last, some sensible commentary on bank levy – MacroBusiness

The Fed Sends A Frightening Letter To JPM | Zero Hedge

From Pam Martens and Russ Martens via

Yesterday the Federal Reserve released a 19-page letter that it and the FDIC had issued to Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, on April 12 as a result of its failure to present a credible plan for winding itself down if the bank failed……

At the top of page 11, the Federal regulators reveal that they have “identified a deficiency” in JPMorgan’s wind-down plan which if not properly addressed could “pose serious adverse effects to the financial stability of the United States.”

How could one bank, even one as big and global as JPMorgan Chase, bring down the whole financial stability of the United States? Because, as the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) has explained in detail and plotted in pictures (see below), five big banks in the U.S. have high contagion risk to each other….

….Equally disturbing, the most dangerous area of derivatives, the credit derivatives that blew up AIG and necessitated a $185 billion taxpayer bailout, remain predominately over the counter. According to the latest OCC report, only 16.8 percent of credit derivatives are being centrally cleared. At JPMorgan Chase, more than 80 percent of its credit derivatives are still over-the-counter.

Contagion and derivatives exposure….. two facets of the same problem. To me the question is: why are too-big-to-fail banks allowed to carry such high derivative exposure? Wells fargo (WFC) seems to be the only big bank who is not swimming naked.

Source: The Fed Sends A Frightening Letter To JPMorgan, Corporate Media Yawns | Zero Hedge

Global Bank Regulator Calls for Larger Capital Cushions | CFO

Matthew Heller reports that the Financial Stability Board, chaired by BOE Governor Mark Carney, is set to table fresh proposals at the upcoming G20 meeting in Brisbane. The world’s top 30 “systemically important” banks will be required to substantially increase their capacity to absorb losses without requiring a bailout.

The new rules would require global systemically important banks to hold minimum capital of 6% of total assets against losses — twice the provisional leverage ratio required by Basel III rules. In addition, banks would be required to have capital equal to at least 16% and as much as 20% of their risk-weighted assets, such as loans.

Even if the big four banks in Australia are not on the list, they are systemically important from an Australian perspective and should hold similar levels of capital.

Read more at Global Bank Regulator Calls for Larger Capital Cushions.

Shilling: Big Banks Shift to Lower Gear | The Big Picture

Gary Shilling describes how US regulators are getting tough with big banks:


Like unscrambling an egg, it’s hard to envision how big banks with many, many activities could be split up. But, of course, one of the arguments for doing so is they’re too big and too complicated for one CEO to manage. Still, there is the example of the U.K., which plans to separate deposit-taking business from riskier investment banking activities – in effect, recreating Glass-Steagall.

In any event, among others, Phil Purcell believes that “from a shareholder point of view, it’s crystal clear these enterprises are worth more broken up than they are together.” This argument is supported by the reality that Citigroup, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley stocks are all selling below their book value Chart 5. In contrast, most regional banks sell well above book value.

Bank Price-to-Book Ratios

Push Back
Not surprising, current leaders of major banks have pushed back against proposals to break them up. They maintain that at smaller sizes, they would not be able to provide needed financial services. Also, they state, that would put them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign banks that would move onto their turf.

The basic reality, however, is that the CEOs of big banks don’t want to manage commercial spread lenders that take deposits and make loans and also engage in other traditional banking activities like asset management. They want to run growth companies that use leverage as their route to success. Hence, their zeal for off-balance sheet vehicles, proprietary trading, derivative origination and trading, etc. That’s where the big 20% to 30% returns lie – compared to 10% to 15% for spread lending – but so too do the big risks.

Capital Restoration
….the vast majority of banks, big and small, have restored their capital….Nevertheless, the FDIC and Federal Reserve are planning a new “leverage ratio” schedule that would require the eight largest “Systemically Important Banks” to maintain loss-absorbing capital equal to at least 5% of their assets and their FDIC-insured bank subdivisions would have to keep a minimum leverage ratio of 6%. This compares with 3% under the international Basel III schedule. Six of these eight largest banks would need to tie up more capital. Also, regulators may impose additional capital requirements for these “Systemically Important Banks” and more for banks involved in volatile markets for short-term borrowing and lending. The Fed also wants the stricter capital requirements to be met by 2017, two years earlier than the international agreement deadline….

CEO remuneration is largely driven by bank size rather than profitability, so you can expect strong resistance to any move to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Restricting bank involvement in riskier enterprises — as with UK plans to separate deposit-taking business from riskier investment banking activities — may be an easier path to protect taxpayers. Especially when coupled with increased capital requirements to reduce leverage.

Read more at Shilling: Big Banks Shift to Lower Gear | The Big Picture.

Disturbing trends with financial crises

From the Economist:

Five devastating slumps—starting with America’s first crash, in 1792, and ending with the world’s biggest, in 1929—highlight two big trends in financial evolution. The first is that institutions that enhance people’s economic lives, such as central banks, deposit insurance and stock exchanges, are not the products of careful design in calm times, but are cobbled together at the bottom of financial cliffs. Often what starts out as a post-crisis sticking plaster becomes a permanent feature of the system. If history is any guide, decisions taken now will reverberate for decades.

This makes the second trend more troubling. The response to a crisis follows a familiar pattern. It starts with blame. New parts of the financial system are vilified: a new type of bank, investor or asset is identified as the culprit and is then banned or regulated out of existence. It ends by entrenching public backing for private markets: other parts of finance deemed essential are given more state support. It is an approach that seems sensible and reassuring. But it is corrosive. Walter Bagehot, editor of this newspaper between 1860 and 1877, argued that financial panics occur when the “blind capital” of the public floods into unwise speculative investments. Yet well-intentioned reforms have made this problem worse.

…..To solve this problem means putting risk back into the private sector. That will require tough choices. Removing the subsidies banks enjoy will make their debt more expensive, meaning equity holders will lose out on dividends and the cost of credit could rise. Cutting excessive deposit insurance means credulous investors who put their nest-eggs into dodgy banks could see big losses…..

Read more at Financial crises | The Economist.

Ending Too Big to Fail | The Big Picture

From an address by William C. Dudley, President of the NY Fed, to the Global Economic Policy Forum, November 8, 2013:

There is evidence of deep-seated cultural and ethical failures at many large financial institutions. Whether this is due to size and complexity, bad incentives or some other issues is difficult to judge, but it is another critical problem that needs to be addressed. Tough enforcement and high penalties will certainly help focus management’s attention on this issue. But I am also hopeful that ending too big to fail and shifting the emphasis to longer-term sustainability will encourage the needed cultural shift necessary to restore public trust in the industry.

Dudley calls for increased capital requirements to reduce the risk of failure as well as more robust procedures to reduce the impact of a single large failure:

The major initiative here is the single point of entry framework for resolution proposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Under this framework, if a financial firm is to be resolved under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC will place the top tier bank holding company into receivership and its assets will be transferred to a bridge holding company. The equity holders will be wiped out and sufficient long-term unsecured debt will be converted into equity in the new bridge company to cover any remaining losses and to ensure that the new entity is well capitalized and deemed creditworthy. Subsidiaries would continue to operate, which should limit the incentives for customers to run. By assigning losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors of the holding company and transferring sound operating subsidiaries to a new solvent entity, such a “top-down” resolution strategy should ensure continuity with respect to any critical services performed by the firm’s subsidiaries and this should help limit the magnitude of any negative externalities.

Read more at Ending Too Big to Fail | The Big Picture.

Emperors of Banking Have No Clothes | Bloomberg

The too-big-to-fail problem for banks is greater today than it was in 2008. Since then, the largest U.S. banks have become much larger. On March 31, 2012, the debt of JPMorgan Chase was valued at $2.13 trillion and that of Bank of America Corp. at $1.95 trillion, more than three times the debt of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The debt of the five largest U.S. banks totals about $8 trillion. These figures would be even larger under European accounting rules.

By Anat Admati & Martin Hellwig

Read more at Emperors of Banking Have No Clothes – Bloomberg.

Bloated business of banking | The Australian

Adam Creighton discusses the likelihood of taxpayers being asked to bail out too-big-to-fail banks.

In Australia that probability is now 100 per cent. Standard & Poor’s, a ratings agency, gives Australia’s biggest four banks a AA rating explicitly because taxpayers will provide “extraordinary support” to their creditors in any crisis, an implicit guarantee worth more than one-quarter of the four’s annual profits.

Since 1995, the big four Australian banks’ assets, reflecting a global trend, have ballooned from 94 per cent of Australia’s national income to $2.86 trillion, or 190 per cent.

Read more at Bloated business of banking | The Australian.

Making banks hold more capital is not going to wreck the economy

Mark Gongloff quotes Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute, authors of the recent book The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong With Banking And What To Do About It, from their point-by-point rebuttal of bankers arguments that they should not be required to hold more capital:

“Many banks, including most of the large banks in the United States, are not even using all the funding they obtain from depositors to make loans,” Admati and Hellwig write. “If banks do not make loans, therefore, the problem is not a lack of funds nor an inability to raise more funds for profitable loans, but rather the banks’ choices to focus on other investments instead.”

Read more at No, Making Banks Hold More Capital Is Not Going To Wreck Lending Or The Economy | Huffington Post.

Too-big-to-fail Q&A. Get the facts | Sober Look

Interesting pro-bank piece by Sober Look. I have added my comments in italics.

The debate around “too big to fail” of the US banking system is often infused with political rhetoric and media hype. Let’s go through some Q&A on the subject and discuss the facts.

Q: Did large banks take disproportionate amounts of real-estate related risk vs. smaller banks prior to the crisis?

A: No. That’s a myth. Smaller banks were much more exposed to real estate (see discussion).

The issue is not real estate lending, but risky lending.

Q: Who had their snouts in the sub-prime trough, big banks or small banks?

A: Big banks.

Q: Which “too big to fail” banks were directly bailed out by the US federal authorities during the 2008 crisis?

A: While hundreds of banks were forced to take TARP funds, only Citigroup (among US banks) received an explicit bailout to keep it afloat. Note that Bear Stearns (and Lehman), AIG, GM/GMAC, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie were not banks. Neither was GE Capital and other corporations who relied on commercial paper funding and needed the Fed’s help to keep them afloat. Wachovia may have become the second such large bank if it wasn’t purchased by Wells.

Q: Which “too big to fail” banks were indirectly bailed out by the US federal authorities during the 2008 crisis?

A: All of them

Q: Why did Citi fail in 2008?

A: Citi ran into trouble because of a massive off-balance-sheet portfolio the firm funded with commercial paper. In late 2007, when the commercial paper market dried up, Citi was forced to take these assets onto its balance sheet. The bank was not sufficiently capitalized to absorb the losses resulting from these assets being written down.

Citi was not the only TBTF bank that was inadequately capitalized to deal with losses.

Q: What were the assets Citi was “warehousing” off-balance-sheet?

A: A great deal of that portfolio was the “AAA” and other senior tranches of CDOs that Citi often helped originate (including mortgage related assets). Rating agencies were instrumental in helping banks like Citi structure these assets and keep them off balance sheet in CP conduits.

Q: Who paid the rating agencies?

A: The TBTF banks.

Q: Why did Citi (as well as many other banks) hold so much off-balance sheet?

A: Because they received a significantly more favorable capital treatment by doing so (the so-called “regulatory capital arbitrage” – see discussion from 2009).

Q: Did Citi break any state or federal laws by doing what it did?

A: No. All of this was perfectly legal and federal authorities were aware of these structures.

We need to fix the law so this cannot happen again.

Q: Did derivatives positions play a major role in Citi’s failure? Were other large US banks at risk of failure due to derivatives positions?

A: No. That’s a myth. The bulk of structured credit positions (tranches) that brought down Citi were not derivatives (just to be clear, CDOs are not derivatives).

Q: What has been done since 2008 to make sure the Citi situation doesn’t happen again?

A: The US regulators now have the ability to take over and manage an orderly unwind of any large US chartered bank. Banks are required to create a “living will” to guide the regulators in the unwind process. The goal is to force losses on creditors in an orderly fashion without significant disruptions to the financial system and without utilizing taxpayer money.

Large banking institutions are now required to have more punitive capital ratios than smaller banks.

Capital loopholes related to off-balance-sheet positions have been closed.

Stress testing conducted by the Fed takes into account on- and off-balance sheet assets, forcing banks to maintain sufficient capital to be able to take a hit. US banks more than doubled the weighted average tier one common equity ratio since the crisis (see attached).

Dodd-Frank has been “nobbled” by Wall Street lobbyists. Stress tests by captive regulators are not to be trusted. Increase transparency by supporting the Brown-Vitter bill.

Q: Do large US banks have a funding advantage relative to small banks?

A: Not any longer. According to notes from the meeting of the Federal Advisory Council

and the Board of Governors (attached – h/t Colin Wiles ‏@forteology), “Studies point to a significant decrease in any funding advantage that large U.S. financial institutions may have had in the past relative to smaller financial institutions and also relative to nonfinancial institutions at comparable ratings levels. Increased capital and liquidity, in addition to meeting the demands of many regulatory bodies, has largely, if not entirely, eroded any cost-of-funding advantage that large banks may have had.”

And we should believe them?

Q: Why do TBTF banks dominate the financial landscape?

A: Because of their taxpayer-subsidised funding advantage.

Q: What is the downside of breaking up banks like JPMorgan?

A: Large US corporations need large banks to provide credit and capital markets access/services (Boeing is not going to use Queens County Savings Bank). Without large US banks, US companies will turn to foreign banks and will be at the mercy of those institutions’ capital availability and regulatory frameworks. Foreign banks will also begin dominating US capital markets primary activities (bond issuance, IPOs, debt syndications, etc.) And in an event of a credit crisis foreign banks (who are to some extent controlled by foreign governments) will give priority to their domestic corporations, putting US firms at risk.

Agreed. Large corporations need large banks — or at least syndicates of mid-sized banks. Brown-Vitter does not propose breaking up any TBTF banks, merely requires them to clean up their balance sheets and carry adequate capital against risk exposure.

Q: How large are US largest banks relative to the US total economic output? How does it compare to other countries?

A: See chart below (the chart contrasts bank size as percentage of GDP of Swiss and UK banks to US banks)

Swiss and UK banks have global reach so rather compare absolute size rather than relative to GDP where the bank is headquartered.

So before jumping on the “too big to fail” bandwagon, get the facts.

via Sober Look: Too-big-to-fail Q&A. Get the facts.

I had to smile at the From our Sponsors Google ad at the end of the article, suggesting I open a business account with one of the major banks.

Can two senators end ‘too big to fail’? | The Big Picture

Barry Ritholz writes:

The idea that two senators from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum can find common ground to attack a problem with a simple solution is novel in the Senate these days. If Brown and Vitter manage to end the subsidies to banks deemed “too big to fail,” they will have accomplished more than “merely” preventing the next financial crisis. They will have helped to create a blueprint for how to get things done in an era of partisan strife.

Read more about the progress of the Brown-Vitter (TBTF) bill at Can two senators end ‘too big to fail’? | The Big Picture.

David Vitter discusses bipartisan bill to end Too-Big-To-Fail | CNBC [video]

Senator David Vitter (R-La) along with Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is launching an effort to increase capital requirements for big banks and remove risk-weighting of assets as proposed under Basel III.

End Too-Big-To-Fail | Sen. Sherrod Brown [video]

Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to increase capital requirements for big banks and remove risk-weighting of assets as proposed under Basel III.

In Brown-Vitter Bill, a Banking Overhaul With Possible Teeth |

Jesse Eisinger from ProPublica skewers big banks’ objections to increasing capital buffers as proposed by the bipartisan Brown-Vitter bill:

Goldman Sachs and S.& P. estimate the big banks might be forced to raise $1 trillion or more. That’s a lot, so much that the leviathans’ agents cry out that they couldn’t sell that much stock. But they don’t have to raise it all at once. And they can retain their earnings and stop paying dividends in addition to selling shares.

In putting that argument forward, they don’t realize they make Senator Brown’s and Senator Vitter’s case for them. If investors are so terrified of the big banks that they won’t buy their stock, that’s a terrific problem. Most of the big banks trade below their net worth, an indication that investors don’t trust them. Brown-Vitter might actually help banks by restoring that trust.

Read more at In Brown-Vitter Bill, a Banking Overhaul With Possible Teeth | Deal Book |

Two Senators Try to Slam the Door on Bank Bailouts –

This is a show-down between Wall Street and the voting public. Gretchen Morgenson at NY Times writes:

THERE’S a lot to like, if you’re a taxpayer, in the new bipartisan bill from two concerned senators hoping to end the peril of big bank bailouts. But if you’re a large and powerful financial institution that’s too big to fail, you won’t like this bill one bit.

The legislation, called the Terminating Bailouts for Taxpayer Fairness Act, emerged last Wednesday; its co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. It is a smart, simple and tough piece of work that would protect taxpayers from costly rescues in the future.

This means that the bill will come under fierce attack from the big banks that almost wrecked our economy and stand to lose the most if it becomes law.

For starters, the bill would create an entirely new, transparent and ungameable set of capital rules for the nation’s banks — in other words, a meaningful rainy-day fund. Enormous institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Citibank, would have to hold common stockholder equity of at least 15 percent of their consolidated assets to protect against large losses. That’s almost double the 8 percent of risk-weighted assets required under the capital rules established by Basel III, the latest version of the byzantine international system created by regulators and central bankers.

This change, by itself, would eliminate a raft of problems posed by the risk-weighted Basel approach……

The outcome is far from clear. The financial muscle of Wall Street can buy a lot of influence on the Hill. But my guess is that they are too smart to incense voters by meeting the bill head-on. Instead they will attempt to delay with amendments and eventually turn it into an unwieldy 1000-page unenforcable monstrosity that no one understands. Much as they did with Dodd-Frank.

If they win, the country as a whole will suffer. Maybe not today, but in the inevitable next financial crisis if this bill does not pass.

Read more at Two Senators Try to Slam the Door on Bank Bailouts –

Fixing the Banking System for Good

I believe we have a crisis of values that is extremely deep…. because the regulations and legal structures need reform. I meet a lot of these people [from] Wall street on a regular basis. I’m going to put it very bluntly: I regard the moral environment as pathological…… I have never seen anything like it. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that. They have no responsibility to pay taxes. They have no responsibility to their clients. They have no responsibility to ….counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive and feel absolutely out of control…… They have gamed the system to a remarkable extent. And they have a docile president, a docile White House and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies……

Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University speaking at the “Fixing the Banking System for Good” conference on April 17, 2013.

Time to clean up the Banks

Gabriele Steinhauser at WSJ writes:

A group of key crisis managers believes cleaning up weak banks is the only way to get Europe’s economy to grow again, after superlow interest rates and large-scale liquidity injections from the ECB have failed to produce the desired results. These officials see continued doubts over the health of many lenders as the main reason banks are reluctant to lend to companies, especially in the continent’s weaker countries.

“We’ve been stuck in this rubbish for five years, because we’ve been doing everything to prevent the banks from being recapitalized properly and the stress tests from being stringent enough,” said a senior EU official. “If we don’t do this, we will stay in this trap until 2020.”

The time has come to clear up the mess from the GFC and strengthen bank balance sheets — not only in Europe — so that a similar financial crisis is unlikely to ever happen again. Moves are also afoot in the US where Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-La.) are working on a bipartisan bill to end too-big-to-fail banks. The bill does not attempt to break up big banks but focuses on improving bank capital ratios. Risk-weighted capital ratios as suggested by Basel III disguise banks’ true leverage and encourage risk-taking. Australian banks are particularly exposed to low risk-weighting of residential mortgages. Eliminating risk-weighting would force banks to strengthen their underlying capital base and discourage risk concentration in low risk-weighted areas.

The biggest obstacle to change, however, is the banks who benefit from an implicit taxpayer-funded guarantee in the event of failure. Being able to rely on a bailout enables them them to take bigger bets than their balance sheets would otherwise allow. Columbia University’s Charles Calomiris points out that the banks are able to get away with this because they are supported by populist democratic governments who trade off banking instability in return for political (and financial) support.

Read more at New Drive for Tougher Testing of European Banks –