It is estimated that the backdown by the Fed will shrink the amount of extra capital required by the biggest US banks by about $US100 billion and the Wall Street banks are now very hopeful that Trump’s new team will ensure even that reduced requirement disappears.
The US banks aren’t alone in questioning whether Basel III tilts the balance between institutional stability and risk-taking too far towards risk-aversion, with other jurisdictions like the European Union and UK stretching out the timelines for its introduction and questioning some of the rules.
But the US banks are more likely to seek, not just the withdrawal of what’s left of the Basel III changes, but a deeper and wider rollback of regulation, as occurred during Trump’s last term as president, when he unwound some of the post-2008 Dodd-Frank reforms to the sector.
JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon says US banks are “dancing in the streets” after Trump’s election win. Credit: Bloomberg
Barack Obama had signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law in 2010, which imposed much stricter regulations on banks with more than $US50 billion of assets and annual “stress tests” on systemically important institutions, along with capital adequacy and minimum liquidity rules.
Loading
Trump, in 2018, scrapped the $US50 billion threshold, created a new $US250 billion threshold that applied to only a dozen or so of the largest banks and weakened some of the regulations in the Act.
It is unclear whether those changes played a role in the collapses and bailouts of three regional US banks in March last year, including Silicon Valley Bank, which had more than $US200 billion of assets, although less regular and less intrusive supervision may well have played a role in the bank failures.
There is, however, a direct correlation between the level of prudential standards and risk. The more capital and access to liquidity a bank has the less risky it is and the less risk that taxpayers will have to bail out failed institutions, as occurred around the world after the 2008 financial crisis.
Too much capital and costly liquidity, however, and banks will ration their lending and the supply of credit to the businesses that drive economic growth and/or increase the cost of that credit.
There’s a fine balance between banks holding too much and too little capital, although, for banks that are deemed globally or domestically of systemic importance – that are too big to be allowed to fail – regulators should err on the side of caution.
One doubts that caution is going to be the watchword for Trump’s new regulators. That will have implications, not just for the US banking and financial system but the global system, given that the big US banks compete internationally and therefore the level at which their prudential requirements are set will influence the competitiveness, or otherwise, of banks in other jurisdictions.
While memories of 2008 and its traumatic and costly aftermath may be receding, the last thing the global economy needs now is a competition between national bank regulators to lower prudential standards.
The US was hit by massive bank failures years after Trump loosened regulations. Credit: AP
There are three key agencies involved in regulating US banks. There’s the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. On some issues involving banks, the US Securities and Exchange Commission and US Treasury also have roles.
Loading
In the background (well, actually front and centre) of course, are Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, their “Department of Government Efficiency” and their plan to slash government spending and red tape and cut a swathe through government agencies in pursuit of $US2 trillion of savings.
Cutting deeply into bank and other financial institution regulations to free up lending and boost bank profitability and economic would no doubt appeal to both, and Trump.
Trump can remake the leadership of all the agencies responsible for regulating banks except the Fed, where Powell’s term as chair (but not his board membership) expires in May 2026.
Powell has said he will refuse to relinquish the chair if Trump asks him to.
Trump, who has made no secret of his desire to have influence over the Fed’s decision-making and who explored mechanisms for sacking Powell during his last term (and discovered there wasn’t a legal basis for doing so), said last weekend that he wouldn’t ask him to resign.
Trump’s Republican advisers, however, have their eyes set on a different key Fed official, vice chairman Barr. While his term doesn’t end until July 2026, he might be more susceptible to pressure than Powell.
One doubts that caution is going to be the watchword for Trump’s new regulators.
Powell has allowed the vice chair for banking supervision almost total autonomy during his period as chair, with Trump nominee, Richard Clarinda, allowed the authority to relax the Dodd-Frank regulations during Trump’s previous stint in the White House. Removing Barr and putting a pro-deregulation nominee in place would clear the way for deeper deregulation.
Another element of bank regulation that has some bankers excited is the potential for regulatory changes that would remove the additional capital requirements for holding some alternative assets, either directly or within individual customer’s accounts.
Assets like cryptocurrencies, private credit, private equity and structured securities that turn illiquid assets into tradeable assets could find their way into the mainstream banking system.
Loading
Given Trump’s newfound love of crypto and his ownership of a crypto platform that has ambitions within crypto finance, it wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone if he decided loosening bank rules to boost the US presence in crypto.
The last time the US banking system was heavily into structured and exotic products, of course, was in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Remember sub-prime mortgages?
Crypto wasn’t a thing back then and private credit and private equity didn’t loom anywhere near as large, but what’s that saying about history not repeating, but rhyming?
