Auf Voxeu schreibt David Miles von der Bank of England über die Kosten und Benefits höherer Eigenkapitalanforderungen für Banken. Er ist der Meinung, dass der Nutzen die Kosten deutlich übersteigt. Das Abstract:
"There is a view that banks are using more equity capital – and relatively less debt – to finance the assets they hold, creating substantial costs so great as to make more capital unfeasible. This column argues that these costs are exaggerated, but that the benefits of having banks that are far more robust are likely to be large. The argument that equity capital is costly is more an admittance that banks cannot convince people to provide finance in the knowledge that their returns will inevitably share in the downside and the upside. Worryingly, it is as if banks cannot play by the same rules as other enterprises in a capitalist economy. After all, capitalists are supposed to use capital."
Das stärkste Argument dafür, dass die Kosten gar nicht so hoch sein werden, ist meiner Meinung nach folgendes. (Und weil es so einfach ist, weiß ich nicht, warum es in der Öffentlichkeit nicht stärker diskutiert wird.)
"There is, of course, a bit of theory – not especially complicated and pretty much in line with common sense – which also suggests that the costs to banks of using more equity financing are not likely to be great. The idea here is that while the required return on equity is likely to be greater than the required return on debt – because it is more risky – the extra cost of financing from using more equity is small because extra equity reduces risk and lowers the required return on both debt and equity. I doubt that this offset is so great as to make the cost of debt and equity to a bank the same - the Modigliani-Miller theorem is not likely to hold exactly. But nonetheless the cost of using more equity on the overall cost of funding a banks’ assets is, even on pessimistic assumptions, not likely to be great."
Die Schlussfolgerung ist dann ein Schuss vor den Bug aller Banker:
"What are the people that run banks really saying if they argue that it is very costly – even unfeasible – to use more equity funding? One interpretation is that this argument is an admission that they cannot run a private enterprise in a way which makes people willing to provide finance whose returns share in the downside and the upside."
(Ich hatte zum gleichen Thema vor langer Zeit schon mal auf einen anderen Aufsatz hingewiesen.)