In a recent column Bernard Hickey suggested the following:
Taxpayers still face the risk of seeing bank losses socialised in future while today’s profits are privatised.
A more honest solution would be for the Government and the Reserve Bank to openly state that a bailout would not occur. Term depositers would demand a higher return to compensate for the higher risk, and it would remove the moral hazard that currently subsidises the profits of Australian banks.
Now lets be a bit careful here. Yes there is an implicit government guarantee of banks – in fact the way to look at it is through the lens of a deposit guarantee, when it comes to the big banks the New Zealand government will not allow depositors to lose out.
The logic behind this is the fear of a bank run. The reason we hadn’t had a financial crisis on a global scale between the Great Depression and 2007 was largely due to the implicit deposit guarantees that soveriegn nations had put in place during the 1930s. Even if these were not always “explicit” they helped prevent runs on the banking system, which engendered confidence and prevented financial crises. One key reason for the GFC during 2007-2009 was the sudden change in behaviour by governments – where they were showing themselves suddenly unwilling to provide this insurance on the basis of “moral hazard”. It is true that issues of moral hazard had helped to drive risky lending, but it was confusion around where the burden of debt fell and a lack of clarity around who was “implicitly insured by government” that led to a run on wholesale financial markets and the financial crisis.
The “solution” to any perceived issue in our banking system is not to get rid of deposit guarantees, and it is not to remove the implied subsidy that this may provide to the New Zealand banking system. It is to ensure that banks in turn face this cost during the rest of the cycle.
The RBNZ’s desire to set up the OBR is based on a desire to prevent bank runs, while also making who bears the burden of a bank failure “fairer”. They are trying to ensure that we don’t have a financial crisis, while minimising the cost associated with “moral hazard”. This is preferable to forgeting the lessons of the Great Depression and GFC, which is what we would be doing if we were to completely pull away from the implicit back stop of the banking system. Trust me, I don’t like implicit insurance for industries myself – but financial markets are one area where such things need to take place, and as Hickey says they have to take place in a transparent manner.