Bill Mitchell-en Britain banking regulation to tighten as a consequence of leaving the neoliberal EU
(http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=46907)
(i) Hasiera gisa, Brexit-ez
… I note that the British Remainer Left fall over themselves to signal whenever there is any bad news about Britain that it must be because of Brexit – “see, we told you so sort of stuff”. And with the pandemic and government incompetence there have been lots of opportunities for this lot to do that. I guess it makes them feel better as the Labour Party designs its comeback based on the ‘flag’ and ‘patriotism’ and expunging any relics of Jeremy Corbyn. Good luck with that, it is bound to work! But the future of Britain will actually be determined by a range of factors now in the control of the authorities and how they handle the transition away from EU law will be a significant element in that ensuring that future works for the people rather than just isolates Britain as a neoliberal hell-hole. We received our first sign of how things might work out last week when the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority released their latest Consultation Paper (CP5/21, (February 12, 2021) – Implementation of Basel standards – which marked a sharp shift away from the lax EU banking standards. The Remainers were silent on this.
(ii) Bank of England-en adierazpena
This was the Bank of England Prudential Regulation Authority’s first major post-Brexit statement and upon reading it you will learn that it seeks to impose much tougher capital adequacy rules on British banks than operated within the European Union.
The PRA seeks to set out the new rules that implement “international standards through a new PRA Capital Requirements Regulations (CRR) rule instrument.”
They recognise that there is now a lacunae given Brexit and see the “purpose of these rules is to implement some of the set of international standards that remain to be implemented in the UK.”
The discussion is in the context of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) standards which became universally relevant during the GFC.
These standards are often referred to as the capital adequacy rules.
Nations:
… agreed a series of reforms to the financial services regulatory framework intended to enhance the resilience of internationally active banks … These measures are known as ‘Basel III’ standards. Some of the standards were implemented into EU law … and subsequently converted into UK law … However, some Basel III standards were not implemented in the EU before the end of the transition period and so remain to be implemented in the UK.
I have written about the Basel III approach to banking regulation before:
1. Banks might be forced to buy government bonds … (September 24, 2009).
2. Lending is capital- not reserve-constrained (April 5, 2010).
3. New central bank initiative shows governments are not financially constrained (January 24, 2012).
The Bank’s Consultation Paper documents the changes that the “HM Government’s Financial Services Bill (the FS Bill) proposes to enable the implementation of those standards”.
There are 14 areas where the new legislation will improve existing standards.
One concerns the definition of capital:
… revision to the definition of capital, in particular for the treatment of Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) deductions for software assets and certain collective investment undertakings (CIUs).
What is that about?
It means that banks making loans will not be able to claim software assets as capital to extend their capacity to make loans.
(iii) Eurolandia
In 2020, there was a decision made by the European Union with respect to the very precarious state of Deutsche Bank AG to allow them to include software assets for prudential purposes.
DB was forced by the European Banking Authority to justify the treatment of software assets.
On July 7, 2020, DB – responded – to a series of questions put to the company by the authority.
The British PRA has determined that such a treatment violates the intent of the Basel standards.
They say:
1. “The Basel III standards require that intangible assets be deducted fully from CET1, including software assets that qualify as intangible assets under the relevant accounting standards. This approach reflects the concern that intangible assets are not sufficiently loss absorbent on a going concern basis to warrant recognition as CET1 capital.”
2. “The EU CRR II introduced requirements to exclude certain software assets from the requirement for CET1 deduction … Under the requirements, some software assets that are accounted as intangible assets would not require deduction from CET1, or be subject to a requirement for only partial deduction”.
3. “The PRA published a statement on its concern that excluding such software assets from the requirement for CET1 deduction could undermine the safety and soundness of firms.”
4. “It recommended that firms do not base their distribution or lending decisions on any capital increase from applying the revised EU CRR II deduction requirement.”
5. “The PRA found no credible evidence that software assets would absorb losses effectively in a stress. Accordingly, the PRA proposes to modify Article 36 of the CRR (as it forms part of retained EU law) when it is transferred into PRA rules to require the full deduction from CET1 of all intangible assets, with no exception for software assets.”
So to cut a long and detailed story short, the new regulative environment proposed by the PRA will tighten bank capital and provide for a much safer financial sector than would have been the case had Britain remained within the EU and been bound by the EU financial directives.
The PRA clearly assessed that the EU regulatory ‘soft touch’ might lead to unsafe British banks and reduce their capacity to have resources on tap that can absorb losses arising from bad loans or speculative errors.
So, while the Remainers are constantly speculating about the collapse of labour standards under Brexit and chlorinated chickens and all the rest of it, the first concrete step to redefine the regulative environment in the newly sovereign Britain will reverse the neoliberal approach that favours banksters.
But then the Remainers are silent on that because it doesn’t fit their story.
Ondorioak
1) The EU is setting its standards to suit DB. The British standards, now that it is free to set them, are more robust by far and identify one of the major problems that have arisen in the neoliberal era.
Please don’t conclude I think the proposed new British regulative environment is perfect and cannot be improved.
Far from it.
2) But it is a vast improvement on what the EU is prepared to push onto its banking system and that will be of benefit to the British people.
3) That could have only been achieved as a consequence of Brexit.
