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.
Big bankers in the wake of the Great Depression were more inclined to regulate the U.S. financial system than today.
By Nomi Prins
FORTUNE – It was a quintessential October day in upstate New York. By the banks of the Hudson River, a torrential downpour drenched the fall foliage, obscuring otherwise glorious shades of amber and gold, and forming pools of bubbling mud by the road sides.
My boots soaked, I trudged MOREMar 19, 2014 12:53 PM ET
The new Fed Chair was stumped on a key Volcker Rule question.
FORTUNE -- Stock markets cheered Janet Yellen's performance in front of the House Financial Services Committee Tuesday, with the S&P 500 up 1.11%. But not everyone was impressed.
One particular exchange bothered Jim Bianco of Bianco Research, who wrote in a note to clients that it appeared Yellen was "painfully flustered" when North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry questioned the Fed MOREChristopher Matthews - Feb 13, 2014 5:00 AM ET
At Goldman, JPMorgan, and Bank of America, there are signs that the risky business Washington was trying to root out continues to grow.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 24, 2014 9:56 AM ET
If the investment bank was beaten by Washington, it didn't lose by much.
FORTUNE -- Goldman Sachs' announcement last week that its fourth-quarter earnings fell 19% from a year ago was greeted as a watershed moment.
New York magazine suggested Goldman (GS) bankers switch from Dom to André. The New York Times called Goldman wary, with a key unit in continued decline and facing uncertain regulations. Politico took the occasion to MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 21, 2014 12:57 PM ET
The largest asset managers should become simpler, smaller and less interconnected.
By Sheila Bair
FORTUNE -- Hark. Do you hear it? That sound of ringing bells coming from the nation's capital as we enter the holiday season? Is it Salvation Army Santas taking to the street corners? Church campaniles playing "Carol of the Bells?" Or maybe angels getting their wings a la the Christmas classic It's a Wonderful Life?
Nope. It's the MOREDec 4, 2013 12:41 PM ET
The credit bureaus haven't signaled they will follow FICO's push to make credit scores free of charge.
FORTUNE -- Earlier this week, FICO, the mother of all credit scores used by most U.S. lenders, announced it would start giving some consumers their credit scores for free.
It's a welcome move for anyone eager to keep up with the status of their financial health, but the nation's three major credit bureaus sell their MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Nov 6, 2013 10:31 AM ET
Unlike today's problems, tomorrow's headaches can't be cured by writing a few checks.
FORTUNE -- People tend to spend way too much time worrying about what's in the headlines and not enough time worrying about things, buried in small type, that are less obvious but lots more important. Today's case in point: J.P. Morgan Chase.
JPM (JPM), as we'll call it, has been playing the role of piñata for plaintiffs and regulators MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Oct 9, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Assets at the six largest U.S. banks are up 37% from five years ago. What happened?
FORTUNE -- One third of all business loans this year were made by Bank of America. Wells Fargo funds nearly a quarter of all mortgage loans. And held in the vaults of JPMorgan Chase is $1.3 trillion, which is 12% of our collective cash, including the payrolls of many thousands of companies, or enough to MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Sep 13, 2013 11:42 AM ET
Regulators balk on a rule that was meant to insure sensible mortgage lending.
FORTUNE -- Regulators have, once again, backed down on a piece of financial regulation put in place in the wake of the financial crisis. And that's too bad.
On Wednesday, six government agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., proposed relaxing a rule in Dodd-Frank that was meant to limit risky mortgage lending. The proposed MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 29, 2013 5:00 AM ET
|Regulators pave way for Internet "fast lane" with net neutrality rules|
|GM's $1.3 billion recall cost wipes out profit|
|Female gun instructors in hot demand|
|Apple shares soar on increased buyback|
|Premarkets:Buoyed by Apple, Facebook (but not GM)|