David Prosser: Making the banks even less safe?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Outlook Moody's, the credit ratings agency, has an interesting take on the banking reforms unveiled by the Chancellor this week. While the aim of George Osborne's ring-fencing proposals is to make the banking sector safer, Moody's says it will actually be more likely to downgrade the ratings it gives leading banks if the reformsproceed as expected.
Its argument is that once the banks have implemented ring-fencing, anything beyond the wall built around retail operations will no longer benefit from an implicit Government guarantee of support. The non-ring-fenced assets would include the banks' corporate bonds, which Moody's and its fellow credit rating agencies would then deem to be more risky.
The agency has already warned that 14 banks and building societies in Britain could be subject to credit rating downgrades in the future because they are now less likely to be bailed out by the Government in the event of a collapse.
There's an important distinction to make here: the aim of the Chancellor's ring-fencing reforms is to reduce the risk of a banking disaster having systemic ramifications, rather than to prevent any bank from collapsing, or even from defaulting on its bonds.
Still, the Moody's intervention is important. Were the ratings agencies to rate leading banks more lowly, it would increase costs even further than the ring-fencing proposals in their own right, with all the implications for the banks and their clients that carries.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments