Divided Fed proposes rule to ease capital requirements for big Wall Street banks
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday proposed easing a key capital rule that banks say has limited their ability to operate, drawing dissent from at least two officials who say the move could undermine important safeguards.
Known as the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio, the measure regulates the quantity and quality of capital banks should be keeping on their balance sheets. The rule emanated from a post-financial crisis effort to ensure the stability of the nation's largest banks.
However, in recent years as bank reserves have built and concerns have grown over Treasury market liquidity, Wall Street executives and Fed officials have pushed to roll back the requirements.
The Fed will be voting on the new capital rules at 2 p.m. ET Wednesday.
'This stark increase in the amount of relatively safe and low-risk assets on bank balance sheets over the past decade or so has resulted in the leverage ratio becoming more binding,' Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in a statement. 'Based on this experience, it is prudent for us to reconsider our original approach.'
In its draft form, the measure would call for reducing the top-tier capital big banks must hold by 1.4%, or some $13 billion, for holding companies. Subsidiaries would see a larger drop, of $210 billion, which would still be held by the parent bank. The standard applies the same rules to so-called globally systemic important banks as well as their subsidiaries.
On the whole, the plan seeks to loosen up banks to take on more lower-risk inventory such as Treasurys, which are now treated essentially the same as high-yield bonds for capital purposes. Fed regulators essentially are looking for the capital requirements to serve as a safety net rather than a bind on activity.
However, governors Adriana Kugler and Michael Barr, the former vice chair of supervision, said they would oppose the move.
'Even if some further Treasury market intermediation were to occur in normal times, this proposal is unlikely to help in times of stress,' Barr said in a separate statement. 'In short, firms will likely use the proposal to distribute capital to shareholders and engage in the highest return activities available to them, rather than to meaningfully increase Treasury intermediation.'
Current Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Christopher Waller released statements supporting the changes.
The leverage ratio has come under criticism for essentially penalizing banks for holding Treasurys. Official documents released Wednesday say the new regulations align with so-called Basel standards, which set standards for banks globally.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts
As the smoke settles from yet another astonishing tyre-screeching U-turn by Kier Starmer on his welfare proposals, the stark reality is that instead of significant savings, we will all now face an extra tax bill of £3bn in the autumn. This U-turn isn't surprising to me because their proposal was a classic panicky short-term Treasury driven cut but in no way genuine reform. I even doubt that the savings would in the longer term have materialised. This is because I believe they were going at it the wrong way. The Covid lockdowns blasted a hole in our welfare system. Since 2020, the number of households where no one has ever worked has doubled. Economic inactivity due to long-term sickness has risen by 800,000. And taxpayers today are shelling out an extra £30 billion every year on sickness and disability benefits, on top of an already bulging bill. Lockdown reversed much of the progress we had made under the transformations of Universal Credit, in part relaxing eligibility rules and assessments for benefits, a leniency that astonishingly continues to this day. But also expanding the 'claim culture', albeit inadvertently, through schemes like furlough. It is easy to forget that by 2019 we had the lowest rate of workless households on record. Clearly, we have to get a grip. But solving this problem will take thought, courage and time. The Government's proposals are rushed in order to be 'scored' by the OBR in time for the Spring Statement. In a panic, the Treasury opted to simply top-slice spending by raising the threshold for disability benefits across the board. This leads to some deeply concerning outcomes. According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), three in four Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants with arthritis, two in three with cardiovascular disease, and even a third with cancer could lose support. Yet there is another way, one which focuses on the root causes of the crisis. But that must start with a grown-up conversation about mental health. Monthly PIP claims have more than doubled, driven in large part by a threefold increase in people citing mental health conditions. Meanwhile the majority of people on Universal Credit receiving health-related top-ups now also report poor mental health. Tragically, it is disproportionately young people fuelling this rise, those most likely to suffer the mental and emotional consequences of being out of work. And yet it is the system itself that is driving worklessness and dependency. Of course, PIP eligibility does not require someone to be out of work. Yet five in six recipients are. Taken in the round, once you tot up all the various benefits, the system has tilted towards incentivising ill health rather than supporting recovery. There is another way. New research from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) shows that better targeting of mental health benefits – focusing help to those with more serious conditions – could save the Government up to £9 billion. A more humane and sustainable approach to reform would recognise that, for many people with anxiety or depression, ensuring proper treatment is much more compassionate than parking them on benefits and slamming the door to an independent life. First, the government could use the savings to fund a £1 billion investment in NHS Talking Therapies, expanding 1.5 million additional treatment courses. CSJ polling also finds that nearly half the public believe people with less severe conditions should be supported through programmes and services, compared to one in five saying cash. Second, the Government should accelerate the rollout of Universal Support, originally launched by the last Conservative government and now rebranded as Connect to Work. This scheme works with the local charities and community organisations best placed to help people who are furthest from the workforce. These inspirational people are already on the ground, collaborating with employers to tackle the most difficult barriers to work, whether family breakdown, debt, addiction, and poor health. Finally, for the first time, sickness benefit is being brought into Universal Credit as I had designed originally. The DWP now has powerful tools Universal Credit provides. The NHS has made it clear that for depression and anxiety, the largest new claimant group, work is a health treatment. Yet far too many people were left on sickness benefit with no meaningful contact. Many who were off work for health reasons received no time with a work coach at all. Now under Universal credit that can change. The system should be doing more – using AI to free up work coach time – to increase the contact time with claimants and not leaving them parked on the sidelines. Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts. I understand the pressure Liz Kendall is under. But short-term fixes risk doing lasting damage. We need a system that treats people with compassion while actively supporting them to recover and return to work. That's how to reduce dependency, control costs, and rebuild lives.
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
Reuters
20 hours ago
- Reuters
Democrat Wyden presses Bessent to commit to US sanctions on Russia
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The top Senate Finance Committee Democrat pressed U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday to commit to enforcing Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia and to clarify comments about Russia rejoining an international bank payments network. In a letter to Bessent, Senator Ron Wyden also sought answers on how the U.S.-Ukraine critical minerals deal and investment agreement would help improve Ukraine's post-war security and not benefit any entity or country that aided Russia's war effort. Wyden cited Bessent's comments during his confirmation hearing that he was prepared to strengthen Russian sanctions, including on oil majors, if Trump requested this to help end the Ukraine war, which Bessent called "one of the greatest tragedies of my adult life." "I ask that you reaffirm your commitment to stringently enforce these sanctions and answer questions about how you envision other measures pursued by this administration, including agreements with Ukraine, potentially working in conjunction with these sanctions," Wyden wrote. The Oregon Democrat, who has opposed most of Trump's trade and tax agenda advanced by Bessent, asked the Treasury chief to explain comments he made to Fox News Channel in which he did not rule out bringing Russia back into the SWIFT international banking network. Russia was expelled from the payments messaging system after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. "Would Treasury allow Russian banks to rejoin SWIFT absent a comprehensive peace agreement with Ukraine that fully addresses Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine?" Wyden asked in a series of questions for Bessent to answer. Wyden also asked whether Bessent would continue the U.S. Treasury's implementation of commitments by G7 leaders to curtail Russia's use of the international financial system to support its war against Ukraine. A Treasury spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wyden's letter.
