State-owned banks in the US?

Many countries have state operated banks that support local development or other objectives that deviate somewhat from those of usual for-profit banks. No such institution exists in the US except for the Bank of North Dakota.

Yolanda Kodrzycki and Tal Elmatad study the Bank of North Dakota in the perspective of the feasibility of a similar bank in Massachusetts. They find that the BND is not a typical bank. While it favors local development, it rarely does so directly, but rather by helping local banks. It thus encourages a network of small and local banks, something that does not quite seem efficient to me. The BND was, however, not particularly useful in periods of crisis, like the agricultural crisis of the 1980s, because it also had financing difficulties. All in all, the bank of North Dakota is very different from state banks abroad, which offer all customer services like private banks and thus help regulate through competition some the excesses of private banking. The BND looks much more like existing development corporation that exist in most if not all US states. If Massachusetts just wants to em ulate North Dakota, it does not seem worth the large cost of the initial bond issue, especially in the current economics context.

Cross-border banking and financial stability

Should banks be allowed to do business across borders? The answer is not obvious. For one, it is beneficial that they have the opportunity to better diversify their risks, but they can do this without having to open branches in other states or countries. The counterpart is that doing business elsewhere increases opportunities for adverse shocks. Finally, regulatory competition in an international banking market leads to a large systemic risk.

Dirk Schoenmark and Wolf Wagner try to sort this out in the case of Europe and come to the conclusion that it depends. They argue that Germany and the UK are well diversified and thus can sustain cross-border banking, even though there appears to be overexposure to the US, as exemplified by the large negative consequences in Europe of the recent crisis in the US. For the countries on the fringes of Europe, though, there seems to be very poor diversification. Indeed, these economies seem to be very dependent on a few large foreign banks, and consequences could be dire if they run into difficulties or decide to pull out.

This analysis is entirely based on asset shares and thus diversification. This neglects a major advantage of foreign banks: they bring lending capital that would otherwise not be available. The case for cross-border banking is thus understated in this paper.

You want to restrict bankers' pay

There has been and there still is much outrage about the large bonus payments bankers get. What the public does not understand is that bonus pay is a very large part of total pay, and it is so to encourage bankers to perform really well. And they certainly put in the hours. For example, bonus pay has been criticized because there is most often no "malus," but given that base pay is relatively low, this should capture it. The main criticism is aimed at the disparity of these bonus payments with respect to the average pay of a worker. This is, however, not something that should be regulated at the level of bonus pay, but through redistribution with income taxes. In this regard, whether it is regular pay or bonus pay makes no difference. So, should then bonus pay in banking be left unregulated?

John Thanassoulis does not think so. He argues that as bank compete for top bankers and try to shift the risk on them, they end up paying them too much and all in bonuses. This is optimal for the bank as it lowers its costs right when things get critical. But as a consequence, the bank gets too much into risky activities, as competition for bankers drives bonuses up higher than socially optimal, especially if there is a contagion risk of default for other banks. So you want a regulator to limit bonuses, but in a flexible way, or the benefit of having bonuses in the first place gets eroded. Indeed, it is the top brass that sets the bank level risk, whereas other employees all the way down to secretaries (who also get bonuses) are less influential, even collectively, on the aggregate risk. Thus the idea is not to cap bonuses individually, but at the bank level as a proportion of the balance sheet (which is what matters in terms of default). The pay structure would then presumably be readjusted by the bank, relying more on bonuses where it matters the most. Taxing bonuses has no risk impact, though, except for reducing bankers' pay.

Another possibility could be the dynamic incentive accounts I mentioned before.