Home » “Too big to fail” – the federal government has not communicated enough risks for taxpayers – News

“Too big to fail” – the federal government has not communicated enough risks for taxpayers – News

by admin
“Too big to fail” – the federal government has not communicated enough risks for taxpayers – News
Contents

In the event of a crisis, a systemically important bank needs state liquidity guarantees. The union has known that for years.

CS can obtain a loan of up to CHF 100 billion guaranteed by taxpayers. Citizens and politicians rubbed their eyes as they listened to National Bank President Thomas Jordan at the media conference on UBS’s takeover of CS. After the government rescued UBS in 2008, didn’t the federal government promise that taxpayers would no longer be liable?

Only part of the truth

At the memorable media conference on March 19, Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said the “too big to fail” plan could not have been applied due to the turbulent markets. “That would almost certainly have triggered a global financial crisis.” What she hadn’t said: The “too big to fail” plans weren’t even finished yet.

«Too big too fail»


open box
Box zuklappen

After the financial crisis of 2008, Parliament passed rules to ensure that systemically important banks do not go under and thus cause economic damage: the banks had to increase their equity and liquidity. In the event of a crisis, the corporations should be partially liquidated or restructured. In the event of bankruptcy, only the Swiss business would be saved, the foreign branches would be liquidated. If the bank had been renovated, it would have been reduced in size. Peter Siegenthaler, then head of the financial administration, said in 2010: “The aim of the measures against ‘too big to fail’ must be to release the taxpayer from unwanted liability.” But now it has become apparent that the restructuring of a major bank would require guarantees from Swiss taxpayers in the billions, and probably also in the event of bankruptcy.

See also  Miss Dong did not give up the mobile phone business. What do analysts think about Gree's new mobile phone exposure? |Dong Mingzhu|Smart Home|Mobile Market|Meizu_NetEase Finance

DOK research shows that it would have taken billions in guarantees from taxpayers to implement the two scenarios of “Too big to fail”: If CS had been restructured and downsized, the bank would have lost its customers because of the bank runs of their customers would have withdrawn deposits would require a lot of additional liquidity. In the second scenario, the CS branches abroad would have been declared bankrupt. Guarantees from the taxpayers would probably have been necessary for this, too, because the banks could not have covered all the secured deposits of the creditors.

The taxpayers as the last safety net

The technical term for the state guarantee is: Public Liquidity Backstop (PLB). Reto Schiltknecht, former head of “Too big to fail” at the Financial Market Authority (Finma) until August 2021 says: “The public liquidity backstop is the last safety net when the bank no longer has any collateral.” The National Bank can only grant the bank a loan if it receives collateral for it. Without collateral from the bank, taxpayers have to guarantee the loan. Only: So far there is no legal basis for these state guarantees.

Legend:

The Financial Market Authority (Finma) is being criticized.

Keystone/Archive/PETER KLAUNZER

When CS was taken over, the PLB had to be introduced by emergency law. The Federal Department of Finance (FDF) under the then Federal Councilor Ueli Maurer delayed the introduction of the law, says ex-Finma man Schiltknecht: “We’ve had the English and Americans breathing down our necks since 2017”. The PLB is the international standard in the event of a banking crisis. For Schiltknecht it is clear why the Federal Department of Finance left the bill untouched: “People had respect for the discussion in Parliament that the taxpayer might have to be asked to pay again”.

In an emergency rather emergency law

After a Federal Council meeting in March 2022 to introduce the PLB, the then Finance Minister Ueli Maurer did not speed up the consultation draft because of CS’s liquidity situation, explained his successor Karin Keller-Sutter. “We didn’t want to unsettle us,” said Keller-Sutter at the media conference. And continued disarmingly openly: They had agreed with the Federal Office of Justice: “If we should actually need the PLB, it would be possible to make use of emergency law”.

Better to use emergency law than to pour clean wine on Parliament? The Federal Department of Finance answers technically: As a prerequisite for the “political acceptance of such a strong government measure”, the Federal Council examined in 2019 whether the banks had to build up more liquidity in the event of a crisis. The new Liquidity Ordinance did not come into force until three years later. In turn, the FDF gives the banks 18 months to increase their liquidity by January 2024. The consultation for the bill for liquidity guarantees from the state will only begin in the second half of the year.

Reto Schiltknecht, the former person responsible for “too big to fail” at Finma, speaks plainly: “In retrospect, the impression that thanks to regulation there is no longer any need for help from the state is fatal”. He says self-critically that the financial market supervisory authority should have communicated the risks more proactively. It is a Herculean task to implement the “too big to fail” rules that apply worldwide.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy