7 reasons why breaking up the US banks is a bad idea

Christian StrackeBreaking up large US banks to try and prevent another financial crisis may seem like a good idea to politicians, but Christian Stracke (pictured), of Pimco, says it isn’t. Stracke, the firm’s head of credit research, has published 7 reasons why:
  • Regulations, such as Basel II and the Dodd-Frank Act, are already helping make the banks less risky, as well as their own attempts to shrink balance sheets and complexity.
  • A breakup would be disruptive and could easily spill into reduced lending activity. In other words, a credit crunch, says Stracke.
  • While the new smaller banks might be less exposed to funding shocks, they would still be exposed to all the correlated risks that always plague banking systems, like property bubbles.
  • Many bond-holders realise that the ‘bail-in’ regime – where their bonds may be converted to shares to support a bank – is a reality. Their intolerance of this was an original driver for bank break-ups.
  • Bondholders would be wary of new entities. If the banks were broken up, then which part of the bank would be responsible for the existing debt? Investment banks would require the bulk of bond funding but these could also be “by far” the weakest of the post-breakup new entities.
  • At present, large and systemically important banks are required to run with significantly more capital than smaller one, so a break-up could result in less capital in the system.
  • There could be a potential increase in counterparty risk. Most market participants look for a parent-level guarantee when they trade with the derivatives arm of a large bank. If a subsidiary entity is shorn away from the parent, there would suddenly be significantly more counterparty risk in the system.
Stracke said many politicians and policymakers have grown more aggressively vocal in recent months in their call to break up large and systemically important US banks as a further measure toward preventing another global financial crisis. “At Pimco, we agree that some of the biggest banks are not at their optimal size. Yet while further measures to encourage simpler and smaller balance sheets and operations may be needed, policymakers need to keep a close eye on their unintended consequences, no matter how politically appealing the measures may seem,” he said. ©2016 funds europe

Executive Interviews

INTERVIEW: Put your money where your mouth is

Jun 10, 2016

At Kempen Capital Management, they believe portfolio managers should invest in their own funds. David Stevenson talks to Lars Dijkstra, CIO of the €42 billion manager.

EXECUTIVE INTERVIEW: ‘Volatility is the name of the game’

May 13, 2016

Axa Investment Managers chief executive officer, Andrea Rossi, talks to David Stevenson about bringing all his firm’s subsidiaries under one name and the opportunities that a difficult market...


ROUNDTABLE: Beyond the hype

Oct 13, 2016

The use of smart beta investing continues to grow. Our panel, made up of both providers and users, discusses what the strategy actually means, how it should be used and the kind of pitfalls that may arise when using this innovative investment technique.

MIFID II ROUNDTABLE: Following the direction of travel

Sep 07, 2016

Fund management firms Aberdeen and HSBC Global meet with specialist providers to speak about how the industry is evolving towards MiFID II.