www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Banks tell G20 new rules on holding capital could push UK back into recession

Report shows two percentage points could be sliced off economic growth as result of measures forcing banks to build up bigger cushions of capital

The skyline of City of London including Tower 42 and Swiss Re tower (gherkin). Photograph: Paul Owen

The skyline of the City of London. Photograph: Paul Owen

Britain's biggest banks are trying to convince the leaders of the G20 that new rules forcing them to hold billions more pounds of capital could push the UK back into recession.

The warning of the impact on the economy is contained in a preliminary report by accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was commissioned by the banking industry to assess the damage the new regulations could cause to an economy that grew by just 0.2% between January and March.

The report is intended to be completed in time for the G20 meeting in Canada in June and currently shows that two full percentage points could be sliced off economic growth as a result of a package of measures that forces banks to build up bigger capital cushions, and hold liquid assets such as government bonds that can be sold easily in the event of a crisis.

Regulators want banks to hold more capital to make it less likely that they will need to be bailed out again and more liquid assets to avoid a rerun of the credit crunch that preceded the 2008 banking crisis, when the markets seized up because banks were stuck with financial instruments that their rivals refused to buy.

But banks argue that if the requirements become too stringent they will not have enough spare cash to lend to businesses and householders.

The report is being prepared as the UK is confronted by a row between the political parties about how to stimulate the economy – and get banks to lend – and cut the budget deficit to protect the country's important AAA credit rating, which affects the price the UK pays to borrow on the financial markets.

The banks have also been responding to consultations by regulators about the changes, to make similar warnings.

Lloyds Banking Group, 41% owned by the taxpayer, has told a crucial international regulatory body based in Basel, Switzerland, that the new rules "risk causing very serious damage to our fragile economic recovery, especially if implemented within the proposed timetable, as well as having a negative impact on economic growth in the longer term".

The regulators are coming under pressure to delay the implementation of the stringent rules and the Financial Services Authority, which regulates the City, has insisted it will not bring in its new rules until it is certain that the economy is recovering.

The FSA's new proposals to demand banks hold more liquid assets – notably government bonds – could cost the industry £2.2bn a year to implement and on one estimate, banks will need to hold an extra £110bn of government bonds. In a worst-case scenario a total holding of £900bn might be required to avert another financial crisis.

The British Bankers' Association confirmed that PWC was carrying out analysis for the banks on the cumulative effect on the economy of the next wave of capital and liquidity proposals, and other changes that could hit the sector.

"The industry has always said that it is at the table for change but at the same time it is essential to assess the impact of these changes on the wider economy and the PWC analysis will be a vital contribution to both UK and international discussions including the G20 process. Other countries are also undertaking similar work," said a BBA spokesperson.

"The analysis is yet to be completed but we will at all times be discussing with the various authorities the issues that arise from the study."


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • IndependentLady IndependentLady

    30 Apr 2010, 11:58AM

    Did you expect them to say anything else? All they are trying to do is avoid regulation and accountability and go back to the good old days.

    Shame they can't be shipped off to another planet to do their thing, so the rest of us can get on with dealing with the mess they created.

  • Amon Amon

    30 Apr 2010, 12:04PM

    But banks argue that if the requirements become too stringent they will not have enough spare cash to lend to businesses and householders.

    Don't worry, if the bankers don't have a any spare cash I've still got a fiver.

  • stevetyphoon stevetyphoon

    30 Apr 2010, 12:06PM

    What the hell do banks know about the economy anyway? Look at the bloody mess they got us all into. And thats with paying eye-watering salaries to keep the best people.

  • conanthebarbarian conanthebarbarian

    30 Apr 2010, 12:16PM

    banks argue that if the requirements become too stringent they will not have enough spare cash to lend to businesses and householders.

    i.e. they are more worried about THEIR profits. We should be watching these boys like hawks before they bugger off with the profits and leave us with the debts.

  • unbanned unbanned

    30 Apr 2010, 12:17PM

    No publically floated corporations keep any cash reserves anymore, if they do then they become too attractive to private equity. Hence the mess the airlines got into over the volcanic dust.
    Heavy permanent regulation is the only way forward, regardless of the lies and threats about lending to consumers. Government has a wider remit that the purveyors of capital.

  • Kaisersoze Kaisersoze

    30 Apr 2010, 12:18PM

    Accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers and the rest of the Big Four along with banks and their rating agencies are in all this together.
    They make up the story they way they want to and it's up to their corporate media buddies to feed it to the people. Unfortunately or fortunately for them it's a very easy job. Most of us have stopped caring about things that really matter to our lives and our planet and plunged into a state of apathy. And instead of waking up we keep buying the same story for aeons...

    We have moved from a feudal system 300-400 years ago to a banking dictatorship of ruthless capitalism where really nothing has changed (in relative terms). In the present form it started approx after the French revolution 1800s when the finance cartel took over and has been dictating the "elected" representatives of the "people" ever since.

    And these politicians bow and accommodate their superiors like you and I would do if your boss asked you to do something... The government is powerless and so is any vote exercised. But there could be one thing we could do with our vote that may make a little difference. Spoil the vote... This is different than not voting at all because this translates as "do as you please".

    Imagine if 10% of the vote was spoiled... they would be like "huh? they are not apathetic and they are extremely pissed off - an explosive mix" And If I were them I would take notice in such development...

  • WillDuff WillDuff

    30 Apr 2010, 12:22PM

    new rules forcing them to hold billions more pounds of capital could push the UK back into recession.

    But paying out multi-billion pound bonuses - yeah, that's great for the economy. Bastards.

    Question is, will the effing Tories do anything about them? Well, probably more than toothless Gordon/Darling have done, perhaps.

  • stoneshepherd stoneshepherd

    30 Apr 2010, 12:23PM

    It is not the purpose of banks to hold money.

    That is like keeping money in a mattress and we all know how stupid that is.

    Money is the oil of the engine of commerce and if it is stuck in the sump and not being circulated it is worthless.

    Sit the bastards down in front of Jimmy Stewart's 'It's a wonderful life' and don't let them out until the 'get it'.

    I would go further and do what is done with local money schemes and put an expiry date on them so that if you don't use it rapidly loses its value.

  • EarlBH EarlBH

    30 Apr 2010, 12:25PM

    we 'used' to have a system called 'Capitalism'.
    In 'capitalism' when a Bank had 'capital' it was allowed to 'create' new loans out of thin air based on a 'Fraction' of that Capital it held. Traditionally its been aroud 10-1. So for every 1 million a bank held in savings accounts etc it could 'create' up to 10 million in new loans. It is called 'Fractional Reserve Banking' & its the foundation of 'growth' in a capitalist system.
    Now we have a system that should be called 'debitism' not 'capitalism' because a Bank can take a 'debt' (ie money still owed to them) & miraculously call that an 'asset' simply by 'swapping' it with another bank doing the same accounting trick.
    But this is just one of many things which are wrong with the banking system today... it needs a total overhaul which should include taking control of our Nations central bank, so that the government don't have to pay 'interest' on money that was created out of thin air in the first place.. its a total con designed to ensure the wealth gets concentrated at the top & ensures the people are basically slaves to 'debt' all their lives.
    Its like selling an entire nation into 'Bonded Labour' (which is basically just another form of slavery)!

  • raydoyle69 raydoyle69

    30 Apr 2010, 12:27PM

    I'd rather go back into recession than let these arseholes have the freedom to do whatever they like. At least when they mess up again the money is there to sort it out.

  • porsupuesto porsupuesto

    30 Apr 2010, 12:28PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • sharkfinn sharkfinn

    30 Apr 2010, 12:30PM

    I can live with that.

    OK, so can we have that in writing from the banks so that when they need to be bailed out again within the next 12 months then we can just watch them fold and not have to bail them out again.

    They are now ON THEIR OWN.

  • OldBristolian OldBristolian

    30 Apr 2010, 12:30PM

    It's pretty obvious that if you force banks to hold more capital then they will have less available to lend out to businesses.

    However, all the leaders on the debate last night, particularly Clegg, were talking about making the banks lend more to businesses.

    You can't have it both ways - it's simply not possible.

  • stoneshepherd stoneshepherd

    30 Apr 2010, 12:33PM

    And thats with paying eye-watering salaries to keep the best people.

    I listened to a Bankster's apologist on the beeb this morning and this was again trotted out as the reason to pay such obscene salaries.

    The question they never answer is "what makes them the best people" - do they belong to the magic circle? NO, do they have a track record of success? NO

    But

    Are most of them members of a select band of insiders belonging to the same clubs, having attended the same schools and universities, and already rich beyond the dreams of avarice YES.

    Not only that, but the 'head-hunters' who find these best people have been to the same schools and universities and belong to the same clubs.

    In short we are being screwed by a self-serving elite and more fool us for continuing to accept it.

    Unless you belong to this group, if you support the politicians who are their puppets, then you are a fool to believe that your interests will be served by voting to keep the puppeteers back into power.

    Vote LibDem for real change.

  • nutsyphon nutsyphon

    30 Apr 2010, 12:34PM

    To all you knee-jerk Guardian readers: go and read a monetary economics textbook and try and understand how fractional banking relates to the money supply and economic output before calling banks "evil" or "utter horse balls".

    The wise thing to do is have a counter-cyclical reserve requirement system that ratchets up as the credit cycle matures and ratchets down at times like these.

    The desire of the banks to loan out more money is an instance of where their private and our public interest happen to coincide right now. They will diverge over time as the economic cycle matures. We need to put in place more intelligent, flexible banking regulations before the next credit-shock hits to avoid excess credit-creation in the latter stages of the economic cycle.

  • sharkfinn sharkfinn

    30 Apr 2010, 12:34PM

    Another story today reflects on the fact that Barclay's made a Q1 profit of 1.8 billion pounds and that 1.4 billion will go on bonuses.

    No wonder the banks don't have any money, when they hand 78% of profits straight to their employees. What is the point of Barclay's being in business???

  • EarlBH EarlBH

    30 Apr 2010, 12:37PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • IndependentLady IndependentLady

    30 Apr 2010, 12:40PM

    To all you knee-jerk Guardian readers: go and read a monetary economics textbook and try and understand how fractional banking relates to the money supply and economic output before calling banks "evil" or "utter horse balls".

    Some of us not only read the text books, we teach the subject. I was predicting the fallout long before it happened. There is no way we can leave the banks to their own devices any more. They must be brought in to line.

    And it's not as if they are lending any more money now than they were a year ago. They aren't. They claim it is because nobody is asking. What they mean is, nobody is asking that they would be prepared to lend to as their lending criteria now demand pure white credit histories which, thanks to their actions, are now extremely few, far between and in the hands of the very rich who do not need to borrow.

    Economics needs to return to its roots as a SOCIAL science, rather than keep trying to be a hard science based purely on figures. When they come up with a real "rational economic man", let me know. Until then, let's deal with the reality that is the situation they created.

  • haunebu haunebu

    30 Apr 2010, 12:49PM

    Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

    fits quite well here...dont try and tell us what to do or else all hell will break loose...

    banks lend us money that doesnt exist and charge interest on it..its no wonder they dont want to change...i wouldnt if i had managed to trick everyone to pay me interest on nothing...

    Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England,1928-41, said......." The modern banking system manufacturers money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand ever created. Banking was conceived an iniquity & born in sin. Bankers own the earth........

  • porsupuesto porsupuesto

    30 Apr 2010, 12:52PM

    IndependentLady
    30 Apr 2010, 12:40PM

    Some of us not only read the text books, we teach the subject. I was predicting the fallout long before it happened. There is no way we can leave the banks to their own devices any more. They must be brought in to line.

    Well said; absolutely.

  • wowza wowza

    30 Apr 2010, 1:06PM

    I've said it before and i'll say it again, the fiscal stimulus the bank's received should have been paid to every tax -paying citizen in the UK instead. It would have worked out about £35,000 each. I'm pretty sure that would have ensured the economy is kept buoyant!!!

    Instead, the banks received all that dosh, won't lend it to anyone and pay their bankers fortunes in bonuses! Bogus to say the least!

  • nutsyphon nutsyphon

    30 Apr 2010, 1:16PM

    @ IndependentLady

    I wait with baited breath for the next revolution in economic thinking. Are you working on it yourself? Personally, I think capitalism is the worst form of economy, except for all the others.

    Do you disagree with my underlying point that raising the reserve requirements on banks at this point in time will be counter-productive?

    Do you disagree that a counter-cyclical reserve requirement system would be a wise way to deal with the credit cycle?

  • Kondratieff Kondratieff

    30 Apr 2010, 1:26PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Swedinburgh Swedinburgh

    30 Apr 2010, 1:32PM

    Banks are not lending to small businesses now anyway. And we KNOW that by not having enough capital and thus bleeding the state coffers for bailouts they have already caused a recession.

    Oh, but Lloyds did find it in their hearts to underwrite £200m for the creation of a new oil and gas explorer the other day (hours after "bouncing back into profit").
    It's still tough shit for their small-potatoes retail customers who need a loan but don't already have a mortgage, though.

  • SophieA SophieA

    30 Apr 2010, 1:37PM

    I am a bank. I like to rob the poor and the hardworking savers to fatten the rich; and I admit I have a soft spot for gamblers. I work on an interest-based allocation model. I tell people it is safe and guaranteed. I give out electronic entries to people and in return I exercise control on the future unrealised earnings of millions, nay billions, of people. I own their sweat and blood. I move money around like a lottery, taking from many and giving to a few, creating nothing of intrinsic value.

    Make no mistake about how hard I have worked to establish this economic reality and how many politicians and economists I have bought to support me. I have lobbied to put laws in place so that I have become the ubiquitous, unquestioned reality. I love being taken for granted!

    I create money with less than a flick of the wand. The rich keep their money in my vaults, where it keeps growing on its own. What?s more beautiful than the sight of money growing on its own? The labourers ? the mechanics, the bakers, the teachers, the nurses and the cleaners ? work harder and harder to catch up with the loans I give; ah, loans, those marvellous illusions of purchasing power. I like people; they are gullible. They accept the master-slave relationships I create: I give out fake purchasing power and they are happy to hand over their homes and jewels to me. Sovereign nations squirm whilst I hold their future generations hostage. Sovereignty is an illusion; I am the reality.

    I have learnt to be sophisticated. I use theorems and charts to fool people. I create increasing layers of abstraction to divorce the real from the financial. The abstraction helps while I nurture moral hazard. I operate in the financial realm, of course; but I play dice in the real world and when I lose my bets, real people suffer. I just sit back and laugh at the success of the system I have created.

    But you know what the cleverest bit is? It is the saver and the borrower who props me up, who stacks the bricks in this façade and adds the cement to fortify it. When I create too much money and governments move interest rates up, the borrowers hurt and the savers laugh at their misery. When money is tight and interest rates are brought down, the borrowers laugh and the savers watch the fruits of their hard work dwindling. There is always a loser on one side of the equation. I lounge in my bonus-cushioned reality, far removed from the consequences of this, whilst people become homeless and savers commit suicides. But you see, I have clinched yet another victory, created yet another paradigm: I am the lifeblood running in the veins of human civilisation. If I am stopped, humanity will suffer a cardiac arrest. So I must be allowed to keep on playing dice with people?s lives, exactly as I am doing now. No one dare question me or stop me.

    People point fingers at Gordon Brown, Alan Greenspan and George Bush. Yet, these same people, never realise how they themselves put the bricks and cement in my foundations. Let the illusion continue. I will go and get some popcorn while my brilliant managers put together some more presentations about the importance of my existence and remind people of the paralysing fear of the unknown. Let the masses be convinced there is no alternative.

  • bill9651 bill9651

    30 Apr 2010, 1:48PM

    The banks need to be split up with retail banking completely separated from investment banking and broking. Indeed I would go further and redesignate investment banks as finance houses to take away their respectability. They should then be left in no doubt that if they get into financial difficulties they will be allowed to go bust.

    Once you strip off the investment arms retail banks will have to lend since this will be their core way of making money.

    The banks will fight and lobby like mad to stop this but the new government must hold firm and do what is necessary.

  • BarlieChrooker BarlieChrooker

    30 Apr 2010, 1:52PM

    Oh, and failing to allow the Banksters to pay themselves obscene bonuses will also result in Armageddon....

    Vince Cables' comment about "pinstripe Scargills" never seemed so apt.

  • wildeve wildeve

    30 Apr 2010, 1:58PM

    Dave's mates at Big Casino smell the coffee. It's going to be business as usual come 6th May. Taking the piss and getting away with murder will no more just be the preserve of the Met in the Square Mile. Barclays £1.8 Bill for the first Q will be but a hint of the goodies to come. Crisis, what crisis?

  • theoriginaljones theoriginaljones

    30 Apr 2010, 2:07PM

    We're all ok boys....look.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/28/alistair-darling-labour-conference?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:99e24f35-f890-4b6d-a196-a75824dcd9d5

    Alistair Darling warned today that it was "too early" to say if the UK was coming out of recession.

    But he vowed never again to allow bankers' "greed or recklessness" to endanger the lives millions of people.

    Phew, was worried for a second..

  • IvanMilat IvanMilat

    30 Apr 2010, 2:12PM

    "The industry has always said that it is at the table for change but at the same time it is essential to assess the impact of these changes on the wider economy and the PWC analysis will be a vital contribution to both UK and international discussions including the G20 process. Other countries are also undertaking similar work," said a BBA spokesperson.

    In other words - we arranged a study to tell us what we want to hear. Of course we want to change things, but only in so far as it suits us, i.e. not at all. We will at the same time pretend that this is all in everyone's general interest, while knowing full well that it ain't in the slightest.

  • JoeBauwens JoeBauwens

    30 Apr 2010, 2:14PM

    This is just saying 'If we don't get our way, we'll wreck the economy' (actually this does bear a resemblance to a certain type of trades unionist, but at least they were doing it out of frustration when the political dice were loaded against their members - not that this is any more acceptable than smashing up a bus stop 'cos your girlfriend dumped you).

    This is why we need James Bond. The knowledge that if you wreck national economies for personal gain then one day a man in formal evening wear will wander in and, ever-so-politely, shoot you, (and no amount of hench-men will ever be able to stop him), should discourage a lot of this sort of thing.

  • IndependentLady IndependentLady

    30 Apr 2010, 2:20PM

    This is why we need James Bond

    Daniel Craig for head of the FSA - the Financial Shooting Authority, licensed to kill any banker not worth their salt.

    Hope he's got enough ammo for that........................

  • SenoritaTarzan SenoritaTarzan

    30 Apr 2010, 2:25PM

    You´d think that with all the money we gave them from our own pockets to bail them out, with the misery they have caused millions of people who are currently unemployed as a result of their greed and profligacy, that they would be intelligent enough to SHUT THE F¨CK UP and smile nicely at us, and agree with all the conditions that we impose upon them, since they are the only people in the whole f*cking country who are going to get a bonus this year, and the only people who are going to get a bonus despite f¨cking up their jobs and not reaching their targets!

    I´m waiting for the first person to mention lamp posts on this thread...

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Property search

Buy

Rent

Find your constituency

Find local professional advice

Search UK-wide for an independent financial advisor or legal expert in your local area who meets your personal requirements

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Guardian Jobs

UK

Browse all jobs

USA

Browse all jobs

  • Loading jobs...

jobs by Indeed job search