Auf der VOX-Seite schreibt er:
"Much stronger capital buffers are therefore fundamental to banking reform. But how much stronger? [...]This column lacks space for a wider discussion of the economics of bank capital, which would go into the Modigliani-Miller theorem, debt overhang, ratchet effects, and so on (for a strong and challenging book on the subject see Admati and Hellwig 2013). But two general points can be made at the outset.
- First, systemic bank failures produce enormous negative externalities.Making banks more resilient therefore has massive positive externalities – i.e. benefits to society not internalised by the banks themselves. Only when banks are very safe indeed does the wedge between private and social interests become small.
- Second, the main argument that banks deploy against higher equity requirements – that equity is a costly form of funding for them – gives a reason to favour higher equity requirements.Equity is costly to the extent that banks are risky. It is in the public interest to contain risks from banks – especially those providing core services such as current accounts – which is best done by more capital, not less."
Er fährt fort, indem er die aktuelle Politik der Bankenregulierung in Großbritannien zusammenfasst und bewertet. Sein Fazit:
"In sum, there are reasons to query the justification for the Bank of England’s apparent policy softening on bank equity requirements. Perhaps the Bank is perfectly correct, but its policy on a matter of this importance should be questioned. No-one can confidently know the answer, but that in itself is a reason for caution – i.e. not risking equity requirements that are too low. The downside risks are much larger than the costs of having an equity/debt mix in bank funding that is a bit higher than optimal.Meanwhile the markets have something to say. In the early weeks of 2016 bank stocks and related instruments have dropped sharply. This is a timely market reminder that the resilience of the banking system cannot be taken for granted. Policy in this area really matters, and calls for vigorous economic debate."