Taxing Banks for Risky Investments

As governments around the world broke open their piggy banks to bail out most of major financial institutions, it comes as no surprise that these governments are feeling a bit strapped for cash. In looking for a way to recoup capital spent on these institutions because of their risky investment practices, a popular proposal is the taxing of banks for such risky investments.

Numbers that the Americans are debating include a levy at 0.15% for 10 years on all financial institutions with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets.

With Germany and England ready to take action and implement similar levies, and with Obama seeking to push the US to do the same, it’s unclear what kind of overall effect these levies would have on banking if they are carried out on a piecemeal, domestic basis. These financial institutions are international in character. Their activities transcend national borders, and thus any attempt at regulation will need to account for the cross-border transactions and international nature of the institutions. Will domestic regulation really solve the inherent problem of big banks making big investments without thinking about the potentially big (and devastating) consequences?  Probably not.  So then what’s the point?

Edwin M. Truman, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institution for International Economics in Washington, proposes a different analysis. He says, “There are two dimensions — paying for the past and paying for the future.”  Instead of seeing the tax as a sure-fire way to implement reform in the banking industry, he would see it as a way for governments to recoup their bailout cash and to provide a cushion for future bailouts.

One other contentious factor in the taxing of banks is the worry that levies will create further competition for banking jurisdictions. While when it comes to corporations law, Roberta Romano has deemed this competition for jurisdiction the genius of American corporate law, it is not clear that there is a direct parallel for the banking sector. For a financial institution, its bottom line may more readily be finding the jurisdiction with the lowest tax, as opposed to a jurisdiction with great legal experience in banking affairs. Starting competition between major governments as to who could offer the lowest levy won’t address the major internal reforms sought for the entire banking system.  Banks are also usually backed by some kind of governmental guarantee (at least to a certain amount), which complicates a government’s interest in hosting a foreign bank seeking to evade that nation’s bank levies.

So what can these levies do so long as there is no unified global approach? The answer is, in short, insurance.

In the case of Sweden, the insurance role of the levy  funded by those financial institutions creating the risks is clear.  According to measures adopted late last year, the government plans to raise roughly 2.5% of the GDP in the form of bank levies over the next 15 years. The annual levies begin at 0.018% of the institution’s liabilities (equity capital and some junior debt securities excepted.) Starting in 2011, the levies will rise to 0.036%. Sweden has based these numbers on what they project a potential future banking crisis would cost. As such, money collected under these taxes is allocated into a stability fund. If a future crisis were to arise, bailouts would come from this fund and not from the public purse.

Meanwhile, the world awaits to see if there will be a global reaction to these proposed levies. All eyes will be on the G-20 meetings in Washington later this month when the IMF delivers a report on bank levies.  While it still remains a contentious matter, there may still be hope for a more unified approach in order to revolutionize responsibility undertaken by financial institutions.