Big Banks' Capital Requirements Should Be Doubled, Regulators Say

Regulators Push For Big Move Against Too Big To Fail
|
Open Image Modal
NEW YORK - JUNE 19: A view of the brass Wall Street bull statue stands at a lower Broadway park at Bowling Green June 19, 2012 in New York City's financial district. (Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)

By Douwe Miedema

WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - Two top U.S. bank regulators are pushing to double capital requirements for the country's largest banks, Bloomberg reported on Friday, as the debate about banks that are "too big to fail" heats up.

The Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) aim to raise the amount of shareholder capital banks must hold to 6 percent of their total assets, twice the internationally agreed-upon level, Bloomberg said.

Critics of large banks say this so-called leverage ratio is the best way to force banks to borrow less money to fund their business, because it does not allow them to rely on their own mathematical models to measure risk.

A source familiar with the talks told Reuters that discussions about the leverage ratio among the three U.S. bank regulators were ongoing, and that no number had been agreed on.

The Fed and the FDIC declined to comment. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the third regulator negotiating the U.S. version of Basel III, had no immediate comment.

Both the FDIC and the Fed have openly expressed doubt about the present leverage ratio in the past.

Thomas Hoenig, the FDIC's second-in-command, told Reuters in an interview last week that Deutsche Bank was "horribly undercapitalized" because its leverage ratio stood at 1.63 percent at the end of last year.

And Daniel Tarullo, the Fed's main policymaker for financial regulation, has said that the 3 percent leverage ratio agreed to internationally in the Basel III capital accord "may have been set too low."

Bloomberg, quoting four people with knowledge of the talks, said that the United States could come out with final rules to implement the Basel III agreement in the coming weeks. In the proposed rule, the ratio stands at 3 percent.

But the higher leverage ratio would be left out of the rules, Bloomberg said, to be proposed at a later stage so that the banking industry could submit comments.

Two U.S. senators, Republican David Vitter of Louisiana and Democrat Sherrod Brown of Ohio, in April introduced a bill that sets a 15 percent leverage ratio for the largest banks, a plan that would force them to raise so much capital that they would in all likelihood need to break up their businesses.

Such political proposals, while unlikely to make it through Congress, put pressure on the bank regulators. The FDIC's Hoenig is a proponent of a 10 percent leverage ratio.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Bankers Who Want To Break Up Big Banks
Sanford "Sandy" Weill(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
The former Citigroup Chairman and CEO told CNBC in 2012 that "we should probably... split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, and have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
Retired Citigroup chairman John S. Reed wrote to the New York Times in 2009: "Some kind of separation between institutions that deal primarily in the capital markets and those involved in more traditional deposit-taking and working-capital finance makes sense." (credit:AP)
Phil Purcell(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
Phil Purcell, former chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the big banks should break their divisions up into separate firms. "These businesses should be spun off to give the value to shareholders and let investment banks be owned privately -- hopefully largely by employees... so that the interests of the owners and bankers are aligned," he wrote. (credit:AP)
David Komansky(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
Former Merill Lynch CEO, David Komansky, is another former megabank CEO calling for the breakup of "too big to fail" banks, according to Simon Johnson. Komansky told Bloomberg TV that he "regrets" calling for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed banks to become bigger than ever. (credit:AP)
Sallie Krawcheck(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Former Citigroup CFO Sallie Krawcheck has argued that big banks are simply too complex to manage. (credit:AP)
Richard Parsons(06 of07)
Open Image Modal
After announcing the end of his 16-year tenure on the board of Citigroup, Richard Parsons told Bloomberg, "to some extent what we saw in the 2007, 2008 crash was the result of the throwing off of Glass-Steagall. Have we gotten our arms around it yet? I don't think so because the financial-services sector moves so fast." (credit:AP)
Scott Shay(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
Scott Shay, the founder and chairman of Signature Bank, wrote in American Banker that "reinstating Glass Steagall should be the highest priority" for financial regulators. (credit:AP)