By Ilya A. Strebulaev
FORTUNE -- Regulating banks is the Gordian knot of today's financial system. There is no shortage of bank regulation proposals. Most are about constraining the amount of debt banks hold either by making capital requirements stricter or by forcing the banks to hold special securities, such as contingent convertible notes, that convert into equity in times of distress. One challenge with all these proposals is that bank balance sheets are so complicated, it is impossible for regulators to untangle them.
My recent research into why banks crave debt points to a simpler solution: reduce the tax penalty banks pay for having equity.
Banks do indeed crave debt, and most are highly indebted, which means that even minor losses can lead to financial distress. If you buy a $100,000 house with a down payment of only $1,000, then a decline of just 1% in the home's value will put your house underwater. This is a rather scary margin of safety and is why individual households and non-financial firms don't, as a rule, overwhelmingly rely on debt when they raise funds. U.S. public firms, for instance, are on average financed only 30% with debt. The rest is equity that serves as a buffer to ride over bad shocks.
What about banks? Unlike Main Street firms, 90% or more of U.S. bank assets are financed with debt. Thousands of banks have more than $9 of debt for each dollar of equity. When the next recession hits, these banks will be vulnerable to failure, and we could again face a financial meltdown.
Financial institutions are tightly linked in today's world, and the fall of one bank can lead to instability in many other highly leveraged banks. Limiting excessive bank leverage could ease risks to the financial system, but it is also important to understand why banks hold so much debt in the first place. After all, Main Street firms try to stay away from using too much debt, for they know that excessive debt spells trouble.
Over the past couple of years, a Stanford University Ph.D. student, Will Gornall, and I have been working on this fundamental question.
One major force that we have identified is the tax benefit of debt. A twist of history means that the interest paid on debt is deductible from corporate taxes, while the dividends paid to equity are not. This tax policy favors debt and bank borrowing. Researchers have been studying the impact of taxes on corporate debt levels for a long time. However, the focus has always been on non-financial firms. When we apply the same analysis to banks, we find that banks have an even stronger incentive to issue debt. Banks act as conduits of funds between savers and borrowers. Say, if a firm borrows $100,000 from a bank at 5%, the bank first needs to raise this money elsewhere. The firm pays $5,000 interest a year, but for the bank $5,000 is actually an interest income, a profit. The bank has to pay tax on that income. That is, unless the bank deducts all of it because of its debt. What happens is that it is good for banks to lever up to the neck because then they can deduct interest they have to pay from that $5,000 income.
Also, those banks that don't have much debt have to charge higher interest to their borrowers (because they can't deduct that interest any longer), making borrowers unhappy -- not only because interest is higher, but because it basically offsets any tax benefits that borrowers can get. Tax benefits, studied for so long, originate in the financial intermediary system of the economy, not in non-financial firms. This is why banks are highly leveraged.
Banks are being given a massive tax break if they borrow and become risky. Thousands of pages of regulation limit bank borrowing, and yet the tax code pushes banks to borrow more and more. This Kafkaesque structure has no serious economic justification. Fortunately, the fix is easy. Equalizing the tax treatment of debt and equity could slice through this Gordian knot and untangle bank financial structure. The government could end the subsidy for corporate borrowing while simultaneously reducing corporate tax, thus making this tax neutral from the public revenue perspective. An alternative way is to equalize equity and debt by adding tax benefits to equity. The latter was recently partially implemented by Belgium. The effect: Firms and banks there now issue less debt and have safer capital structures.
Both Republicans and Democrats have talked about tax reform and the value of broadening the tax base and eliminating loopholes. This large and harmful tax distortion has been off the table -- it needs to be part of the discussion. Ending the tax discrimination against equity would give us safer, less leveraged banks and reduce the risk of another financial crisis.
Ilya A. Strebulaev is a finance professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
As consumers wait for new loans, corporations are seeing a flood of new cash. It seems like good news that lending is up somewhere, unless, of course, the news is too good.
FORTUNE -- Some are worried that, at least in one part of the lending sector, we may now have the opposite of a crunch. Call it a credit stretch.
In the past three years, banks have upped their lending to MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 6, 2014 2:13 PM ET
School and home loans may be an investment in your future, but hold on! It still costs you.
By Jean Chatzky
FORTUNE -- In the last two days, I have read two newspaper stories that have me worried.
The first, from Washington Post syndicated columnist Kenneth Harney, pointed to a huge rise in the amount of debt being taken out in the form of home equity lines of credit. "New home equity MOREMar 4, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Is Hertz better off today than it was seven years ago?
FORTUNE -- Hertz's private equity sponsors sold their remaining shares earlier this week, fully existing the company more than 7 years after buying it from Ford Motor Co. (F).
That deal came in the midst of private equity's "golden age," and was one of that era's most-criticized transactions. Not so much the original purchase, but rather the subsequent $1 billion dividend MOREDan Primack - May 9, 2013 3:35 PM ET
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley preach caution, even as their bankers return to pre-crisis deals.
FORTUNE -- On Citigroup's recent conference call, CEO Michael Corbat said he was still worried about the economic recovery and the market.
"Looking ahead, I believe the environment is going to remain challenging," Corbat told his bank's investors. "Europe's issues, as the situation in Cyprus shows, still have the potential to rattle the markets and impact MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Apr 24, 2013 10:15 AM ET
Beware of munis priced at bubble levels. They'll always pop in the end.
FORTUNE -- Investment-grade municipal bonds used to be Snooze City. You know, the kind of thing that we retail investors buy, stick into our portfolios, and then forget about. But these days, thanks to the Federal Reserve's holding down interest rates and the prospect of steeper income taxes facing top-bracket types, high-grade munis, which pay tax-free interest, have MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 5, 2012 5:00 AM ET
With student loan balances only growing and tuition rates rising, universities must change the way they do business. Here's how they can start.
FORTUNE – While Americans are paying down most of their debt these days, student debt remains a huge burden. Some are even questioning if it has become too easy to take out an education loan.
Outstanding loan balances for the third quarter of 2012 grew to $956 billion, a MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Nov 29, 2012 12:28 PM ET
Study argues that debt doesn't destroy private equity-backed companies.
FORTUNE -- Private equity has a reputation for bankrupting companies, by using copious amounts of debt to finance the original acquisition. A new study, however, finds that private equity ownership is no more likely to result in failure than is non-private equity ownership. Moreover, when a PE-backed company does fail, the debt is not usually to blame.
Well, at least in the UK.
The MOREDan Primack - Nov 27, 2012 1:00 PM ET
Why private equity didn't create a second credit crunch.
FORTUNE – A major financial worry coming out of the recession was a looming "wall" of high-yield bond maturities, largely related to a glut of leveraged buyout transactions completed in 2005 and 2006. Could all of that debt be repaid on time and, if not, would America experience a wave of corporate bankruptcies that would both decrease credit availability and increase unemployment?
So MOREDan Primack - Aug 30, 2012 4:45 PM ET
Bid for electronics retailer not out of line with recent debt-filled deals.
FORTUNE - Analysts' reaction to the bid to buy Best Buy (BBY) from the company's former chairman was this: Not going to happen. They said private equity investors would balk at the amount of debt Richard Schulze would need to raise to make the deal fly. "This would be a very hard deal to pull off," says Michael Pachter, MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 7, 2012 5:00 AM ET
|Michaels hack hit 3 million|
|Walmart offers cheaper money wire service|
|GM's recalled Cobalt was a failure from the start|
|Detroit pension cuts hit civilian workers hardest|
|Alfa Romeo returns to America... at last|