Karen Petrou: How to Rewrite the Leverage Ratio
In 2016, FedFin issued a paper urging a radical rethink of leverage capital standards. Good things come to those who wait. Still, why we had to wait so long is hard to fathom given the predicted, manifest systemic problems due to the leverage standards evident as early as 2019 and in the two systemic crises that followed in short order.
What to do? Revisiting rules he once refused to touch, former Fed supervisory-head Dan Tarullo last week argued for an end to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR), with this add-on charge for the largest U.S. banks replaced by higher risk-based standards And tougher treatment of Treasury holdings. Indeed, Mr. Tarullo opposes taking Treasuries, even just short-term ones, out of the leverage denominator, pressing also for continued inclusion of central-bank deposits. A lower SLR, he suggests, captures the risks of these obligations in concert with his proposed capital add-ons.But what risk to central-bank deposits really pose? If they are at the Fed, which holds the vast majority of U.S. central-bank deposits, then these funds are as liquid and robust as the Federal Reserve itself. If the Fed’s no good, then neither is the dollar and much, much else is wrong that even the toughest eSLR cannot fix.
Further, imposing a capital requirement on reserves held at the Fed makes it less likely that banks will be liquid in any form of run or market crisis. The banking agencies could of course again exempt reserves in a crisis just as they …