Commentary

The 180th anniversary of J.P. Morgan’s birth will fall on Monday, April 17th, 2017. The great financier died aged 76, a few months after testifying before the U.S. Congress in the Money Trust hearings.

To look for the effect of new rules on banks, regulators rely on academic models that treat banks as aggregates. In truth, global banks are collections of service businesses, not simply larger versions of George Bailey’s 1946 community lender. Missing that fact may be one reason why the list of unintended consequences from regulatory reform is growing. Critics in the U.S., without anticipating a challenge, are calling for the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act. But expecting repeal is a dangerous strategy for bankers.

The latest legislative offering in the U.S., the Financial CHOICE Act, does nothing for securities finance. Nothing in the bill provides an exemption to the funding markets from the crushing weight of regulatory reform. At present, both political parties in the US seem willing to accept an outcome where the global funding markets are road kill from the reform steamroller. Many experts believe this legislative failure is due to analytic omissions on the regulators’ part. In that scenario, regulatory analysts simply don’t understand the global funding mechanism.

European bankers are caught up in a debate over whether to disclose their full supervisory capital demands to market participants. That’s an issue because bank supervisors, under Pillar 2 of the Basel III accord, can set a bank’s regulatory capital “guidance” at a level higher than its Pillar 1 “requirements.” Bank analysts and investors can discount the securities of banks with relatively high guidance, assuming that supervisors have learned something negative in their confidential reviews. That’s the essence of Pillar 3: Market Discipline.