Beware the doom loop: New bank rules raise debt fears
Yet at the urging of not just the banking sector, but the Trump administration, the Fed now wants to lower that ratio to levels similar to those of the largest non-US banks. Such a move would, on some calculations, release more than $US210 billion ($322 billion) of capital from the eight big US banks deemed to be of global systemic importance.
Loading
The proposal – it will be subjected to public comment – is supported by Fed chairman Jerome Powell and the new Trump-appointed vice chair, Michelle Bowman, who said it would help build resilience in the bond market, thus reducing the risk of market dysfunction and the need for the Fed to intervene in a future stress event. Bowman, who took up the role earlier this month, is the most senior US bank regulator.
Her view is in stark contrast to her predecessor, Michael Barr, who said the move would reduce bank capital levels and significantly increase the risk that a G-SIB bank would fail and precipitate another crisis.
The different stances reflect the differing priorities of those engaged in the debate about bank regulation.
The proponents for lowering the leverage ratio, and also for excluding Treasury securities and bank deposits with the Fed from the calculations of leverage (which the US central bank is also considering), point to the periodic bouts of stress within the Treasury bond market. They argue that the leverage ratio has constrained the banks' ability to support that market in times of stress by limiting their capacity to buy bonds or fund other investors' trades.
There have been bouts of limited liquidity in the market for Treasuries, most recently after Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs, which have forced the Fed to intervene to shore up the market.
Some recent auctions of Treasuries have also experienced weak demand, with the Trump administration's policies, particularly his tariffs, being blamed for what's been described as the 'Sell America' trade.
The level of demand for Treasuries is about to become even more significant. If the Republicans can agree on the final form of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act – their mega budget bill – they will add something around $US3.3 trillion to the US government's $US36.2 trillion of debt over the next decade.
That makes the depth of demand for Treasuries critical because it will determine the prices at which the securities can be issued. The balancing item in the supply-demand equation is price, or the yield required for the market to absorb the issues.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said lowering the leverage ratio and increasing banks' capacity to buy Treasuries could cut tens of basis points from the cost of government debt. On debt levels approaching $US40 trillion, that could mean very substantial savings.
Loading
Critics of the leverage ratio say it has kept bank balance sheets from potentially growing at the same rate as the supply of government debt, which exploded during the initial Trump administration and Joe Biden's term in the White House.
There are at least two potential problems with looking at the leverage ratio as the solution to malfunctions within the government debt market.
One is that the cause of the problem isn't the leverage ratio, but the rate at which the volumes of government debt have been pouring into the market - a rate that will only accelerate if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passes.
Cut the deficits and debt, and that would alleviate the perceived problem. Instead, the proponents of deregulation want to expand the balance sheet of the banks and raise their risk profiles, so that the deficits and debt can keep mounting. Both the government and bank balance sheets would be weakened.
The second problem is that, if the regulators do free up more than $US200 billion of big bank capital, there is no certainty that the banks would use that to buy more Treasuries or prop up the market during times of stress.
They could do what their shareholders would inevitably demand and buy back that suddenly-surplus capital, with no benefit to the Treasury market at all.
The other measure being touted by the deregulation proponents, and being canvassed by the Fed, is whether Treasury securities and deposits with the Fed should be excluded from the banks' leverage calculations.
The inclusion of supposedly 'risk-free' assets, like government bonds, from leverage calculations – even though they carry zero weighting in the core capital adequacy calculations – is based on the fact that they aren't risk-free.
As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world.
The regional bank crisis in the US in 2023 started when a run on the Silicon Valley Bank forced the lender to sell its holding of government bonds at discounts to face value – incurring significant losses -- to generate liquidity to meet the calls on its deposits.
Macro events like Trump's tariff announcements, or government inflation data, can move bond yields significantly and create paper losses that, if the bond had to be sold to raise cash, would become very real and reduce the capital levels of the bank involved.
Carving Treasuries out of the ratio might free up even more bank balance sheet capacity to buy Treasuries (or return capital to shareholders), but it would make the biggest US banks even more vulnerable to external events, and render the US system more fragile.
In Europe, that nexus between government bonds and banks was dubbed the 'doom loop,' or a vicious and circular relationship between levels of government debt and banking system risk.
During the European debt crisis that followed the global financial crisis, banks hoovered up their country's sovereign debt. As concerns about the creditworthiness of governments, particularly the over-leveraged southern European countries, mounted, the balance sheets of the banks holding piles of their government's supposedly risk-free debt were weakened.
There's a direct relationship between fiscal stability and financial stability.
Loading
The continuing explosion of US government debt on issue is undermining the fiscal stability of the US and increasing levels of financial system risk, even as the administration and its regulators propose weakening the levels of insurance against another banking and financial crisis.
The shape of US bank regulation matters beyond America because of the dominance of the US dollar and the US financial markets within the global financial system.
As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world. No one wants history to repeat.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
33 minutes ago
- West Australian
THE WASHINGTON POST: Trump vows swift action to overturn nationwide court injunctions blocking his policies
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post


Perth Now
34 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump hails Supreme Court ruling as go-ahead for his agenda
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knew US would strike Iran but not when, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was aware the US was planning strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but did not know the exact timing, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal. The US strikes hit key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan last weekend, before President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Mr Albanese then waited more than 24 hours to issue an explicit statement of support for the strikes, after initially calling for 'dialogue' and 'de-escalation'. It was not until after a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet that Mr Albanese fronted the media and confirmed Australia backed the US action. Critics have seized on the delay as evidence of hesitancy and weakness in Canberra's alliance with Washington. Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor said the government was exhibiting 'anti-US alliance' sentiments, due to lacklustre support for the strikes. 'This was the right thing for the United States to do, Israel was entirely entitled to take action against Iran,' Mr Taylor told Sky News on Thursday. 'It was well within the rights of Israel to do what it did … the United States has played a very deft hand in the approach it's taken on this." Former prime ministers Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott also weighed in, arguing that Mr Albanese should have immediately and publicly endorsed the strike. 'If you're in the United States and you take an action like this… you'd want to know your allies were with you 100 per cent,' Mr Morrison said. Mr Albanese has defended the government's handling of the situation, noting that Australia is 'not a central player' in the Iran-Israel conflict. 'We run an orderly, stable government,' he told reporters, repeatedly declining to comment on intelligence matters. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously. But we've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.' At the same time, the broader Australia–US relationship has come under renewed scrutiny, amid calls for the Albanese government to lift defence spending. The United States and NATO allies committed last week to increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. While Defence Minister Richard Marles attended the NATO summit, Mr Albanese stayed in Australia, declining to attend after rumours he may go in order to meet President Trump. Australia has committed to defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP - well below NATO's new target and the 3.5 per cent requested directly by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Well, we have increased our defence investment,' Mr Albanese said on Friday. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.' Government sources have privately expressed scepticism about the NATO targets, suggesting some countries inflate their defence figures by including roads and other infrastructure costs.