Banks: China buys, Europe cries


European leaders say a debt deal is close, but Greek protesters continue to voice their anger

European governments have been kicking and screaming against injecting taxpayers' money into their banks - and are now only likely to do so because Dexia's near-collapse sounded the alarm about a possible and devastating chain-reaction of collapsing banks.

Whether they will ultimately inject sufficient capital into banks perceived to be weaker, well we'll just have to wait and see. And, as importantly, whether they will be able to do so in a way that doesn't significantly increase the indebtedness and perceived liabilities of the governments standing behind the banks, such that the perceived credit worthiness of those governments will simultaneously deteriorate, well that's also moot.

Here is the paradox hated and feared in Paris. If France bails out the bigger banks perceived by their respective creditors to have too little capital to absorb potential losses on loans to Greece, Italy, Portugal and so on, that could well jeopardise France's cherished AAA rating, according to well-placed bankers - for the simple reason that the enormous debts of those banks would move a bit nearer to being on the balance sheet of the French state.

Which is why the most difficult debate between eurozone government heads over the coming 10 days before the postponed EU summit is whether individual member states, like France, should bear the costs of recapitalising banks, or whether they should fall on the European Financial Stability Facility, the EU's bailout fund, thus by implication loading the lion's share on rich Germany.

That said, the British government has achieved the trick of persuading the world and its creditors that Royal Bank of Scotland's and Lloyds' enormous borrowings are not significant potential burdens on British taxpayers.

In fact, in some ways the chancellor should regard it as a policy triumph that Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland's credit-ratings have been downgraded and there has been absolutely no contagion to the UK's sovereign AAA rating.

In fact, as you know if you read this column, that decoupling of banks' credit ratings from the UK's credit rating is precisely what the chancellor has been engineering and praying for: it is the explicit goal of the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Banking, to ring-fence banks' retail operations and make sure they have the capacity to absorb losses equivalent to 20% of their risk-adjusted loans and investments without tapping up taxpayers.

Or to put it another way, although these UK banking reforms are trailblazing in a global sense, France might come to the conclusion that doing something similar in regard to their huge banks could make good economic sense.

However, it was not so much the distinction between French and British banking policy that I wanted to draw, but between European and Chinese banking policy.

Yesterday shares in four enormous Chinese banks, Agriculture Bank of China, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China and China Construction Bank, all soared after Central Hujin, the investment arm of China's sovereign wealth fund, CIC, waded into the market to buy shares in them.

They were all up more-or-less a tenth in price.

Or to put it another way, when the share prices of banks in China fall - in much the same way as they have been doing in Europe - the presumption of the Chinese government is that investors who sell have simply got it wrong, and they need to be taught a lesson.

By contrast, if the British Treasury propped up RBS's price by buying more stock or the French finance ministry took a punt on Soc Gen, they would be seen by most analysts and commentators as dangerous maniacs, intent on eliminating any last scintilla of the conceit that banks are autonomous commercial organisations.

Let's be clear, the Chinese government's way of running its banking system - ordering the banks to lend colossal sums to state businesses and local government when the economy is weak, buying shares in the banks when share prices fall - is only credible because of the massive surpluses of the Chinese state: no one doubts that as and when bank loans go bad that China has the resources to recapitalise and strengthen its banks.

So what does the difference between the Chinese and European way of banking tell us? Really only that, for now at least (and it may not last), China has the financial and economic credibility to do what more-or-less what it likes, and European governments don't. Doh!

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Carney attacks German austerity

In saying that the eurozone will only thrive again if there is a fiscal union, the governor of the Bank of England is in effect criticising Germany for not spending and borrowing more to support weaker eurozone countries.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 337.

    MaudDib @333
    Sorry if missed...

    "Government to run banking system?"

    Anarchists will say "run" = fetish of command & subservience

    Democrats will say Yes & No = democratic oversight

    With respect to "Of, For, By" we've never had democracy

    Solution is between extremes of Little & Big Brother

    "Run" by decisions 99.9% alone, save for Fear & Greed, our Leason-NEED is to be Equal Stakeholders?

  • rate this

    Comment number 336.

    335 yam yzf it is difficult to introduce competition into any service or process with high entry costs eg a utility. There is waste in investing in competing networks when one will do. However you can tell what happens with lack of competition. Any service from electrical or gas repairs is like being in Africa. When a monoply is broken by new technology, eg mobile phones or email its a revolution

  • rate this

    Comment number 335.

    #247 You have the choice to buy evian and plumb own house so that is what is used. You can have a septic tank, except they are now going to tax them. You do not have to have Thames Water
    You can use wind/solar power and not use supplied electricity

    You do have a choice in utilities, it is whether you want choice or convenience which is a choice in its own right

  • rate this

    Comment number 334.

    The value of the shares have gone down, the cost will not have changed for they were purchased at a set price.

    Are you perchance confusing cost and value?

  • rate this

    Comment number 333.

    "Buying Banking shares would give our Government more control of the banks. Interesting idea."

    Do you really want the Government to run the banking system?


Comments 5 of 337



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.