Regulatory Obfuscation and Accounting Gimmickry Have Been the Preferred Approaches of Central Banking with Respect to Capital Inadequacy in Banking

Today [June 1990], many large banks are operating with capital ratios below 5 percent. But even these ratios overstate capital adequacy in the banking system because banks do not adjust the value of their loan portfolios to reflect market values. The resort to accounting gimmickry to mask weakness in the banking system is not new, although it is accelerated when that weakness becomes widespread. One economist noted that “indeed, the use of book value accounting in banking was promoted by regulators in the 1930s to deliberately mask the banks’ poor financial condition . . . . It appears that opposition to market value accounting comes less from banks themselves than from the regulators.” The practical difficulties of marking loans to market value are starting to be overcome with the rise of a secondary market for bank loans. But this market is simultaneously providing evidence of how far bank loan values are overstated. For example, most banks have written down loans to Latin American countries by 25 percent, carrying them in effect at 75 cents on the dollar. Yet the secondary market for such debt shows its market value to be approximately 25 cents (as of late 1989) and declining rapidly, from 65 cents only 1 year earlier. Many money center banks would wipe out their equity cushion by recognizing the market value of these loans alone. The market for bank stocks has reflected this fact better than bank accountants and regulators (who should know better), as investors discount bank stock prices in relation to book values. Capital adequacy also has been overstated to the extent that banks have moved a significant amount of their liabilities off the balance sheet in the form of credit commitments, interest rate swaps, and standby letters of credit. The most important point is that regulatory obfuscation and accounting gimmickry, not genuine reform, have been the preferred approaches of central banking with respect to capital inadequacy in banking. 

—Richard M. Salsman, “Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions,” Economic Education Bulletin 30, no. 6 (June 1990): 65-66.

A Government-Guaranteed Deposit System Artificially Lowers the Cost of Debt Financing for Banks and Increases the Proportion of Debt in the Balance Sheet of the Banking System

Central banking’s provision of deposit insurance with artificial ceilings on interest rates paid on those deposits also diminishes capital adequacy in the banking system. Finance theory demonstrates that firms (banks included) will choose a proportion of debt and equity in their capital structure that minimizes the blended cost of capital. But a government-guaranteed deposit system that is backed by a central banking institution with a monopoly on fiat base money creation, lender-of-last-resort powers, and the right to limit deposit rates, artificially lowers the cost of debt financing for banks and increases the proportion of debt (and lowers the proportion of capital) in the balance sheet of the banking system. Banking is the only industry in which the government agrees to guarantee the short-term liabilities of every participant. It is an arrangement that naturally encourages the use of debt (deposits) instead of capital to finance asset growth. There is a substitution of “public capital” (government-insured deposits) for “private capital” (equity that would have been employed in the absence of government-guaranteed deposits). The imposition of corporate taxation and the tax-deductibility of interest expense (but not dividends) also reflects government intervention and further promotes leveraging and capital inadequacy in the banking industry. Although the banking industry shares with other industries this tax-driven motivation to employ more debt than capital, corporate taxation and tax-deductible interest nonetheless remain nonmarket factors bearing on the decision to leverage. They would not be operative in a free market.

—Richard M. Salsman, “Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions,” Economic Education Bulletin 30, no. 6 (June 1990): 30.

The Lender-of-Last-Resort Function Inherent in Central Banking Encourages Capital Inadequacy in the Banking System

The lender-of-last-resort function inherent in central banking also encourages capital inadequacy in the banking system. The central bank agrees to lend reserves to illiquid banks even if they also are insolvent. The lender of last resort is not concerned with the cause of the illiquidity, even if it arises due to depositors anticipating a bank’s insolvency. The illiquidity, not the insolvency, is seen as the problem requiring a solution. When illiquidity arising from the threat of bank insolvency is remedied by such nonmarket “lending” as the central bank provides, and when such lending is promised unconditionally as a matter of policy, capital adequacy is further undermined, or at least not rectified. 

The expectation that central bank lending is unconditional and unlimited derives from the fact that it is not actually lending at all. Last resort lending by a central bank does not have its source in some existing supply of capital or reserves. In the marketplace, “lending” consists of the transfer of existing purchasing power from one party to another, in which one foregoes its use over time in return for interest. But a central bank committed to rectifying banking system liquidity does not lend or transfer existing reserves. It “creates” reserves, not out of real resources or capital but solely by virtue of its monopoly power over fiat base money creation. This monopoly power sanctions risky banking and promotes banking system leverage through enhanced inflating capacity. Advocates of central banking believe that such a reserve base is beneficial because it is nearly costless. But the creation of fiat reserves costs the banking system its long-term strength.

—Richard M. Salsman, “Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions,” Economic Education Bulletin 30, no. 6 (June 1990): 29-30.