Tuesday 11 October 2011

Excellent summary of how debt-for-equity swaps would work with banks.

Andrew Lilico has a lengthy article in today's CityAM. The idea and the justification are blindingly simple and obvious, of course, but presumably, having won the argument as to why, he has spent the last few years bogged down explaining to people how it would work in practice, so he goes into a good level of detail.

The key to it is this:

... the bank gets new capital – new shares – out of its bondholders, instead of the government injecting taxpayer funds ("recapitalisation" – or, not to mince words, partial nationalisation). So the bank isn’t shut down. The depositors can still withdraw their money. The bank carries on making loans. But it has new owners – the former bondholders – and it has fewer debts (because some of its bonds have gone, converted into equity).

Such a debt-equity conversion can be done very quickly – over a weekend, say, or certainly in no more than a fortnight. If it ends up taking any time, then there is the question of how to maintain service to depositors. That can be done by taking a distressed bank into special administration. When a normal company goes bust, it is taken over by administrators. The administrators in the case of banks would be the Bank of England or the Treasury.


Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

5 comments:

Sean said...

How many months was it between Northern rock and RBS/HBOS? 13?

And the collective brains of the civil service / treasury / BOE/ Govt could not prepare in that time.

Its interesting at the time the Govt had put in a pretty good plan for a pandemic and dealt with swine flu if not efficiently then effectively, not so it seems systemic banking failure.

Its going to be interesting reading in 20 years or so time to see the options that were put forward, and why certain proposals were rejected.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Sean, thirteen months looks about right.

I can also confirm it was about two weeks between NR bank run and me posting this, which only took me a few hours to suss out :-)

Anonymous said...

Oh come on now. Everyone knows PROTECT BONDHOLDERS is the #1 role for government.

AC1

Anonymous said...

Mr Lilico had a similar article in the Telegraph yesterday. So he does seem to be campaigning for this bit of sense.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC1, no, rule one is protect yourself, rule two is protect bankers, rules three is prop up house prices, rule four is bail out bondholders. It may well be that rules three and four merely serve to fulfil rule two, it's difficult to say.

AC, from that article: "The senior bondholders are likely to pursue the matter under Human Rights rules. In five years’ time, when the cases are finally heard, no-one will care."

Tee hee, and he really has thought this through properly, hasn't he?