Are regulators wrong to think of AT1s as debt?
Bank capital bonds face criticism. One answer might be to treat them as ‘fixed-income equity’
The regulatory tide appears to be turning against Additional Tier 1 bonds, a form of regulatory bank capital that was thrust into the spotlight following Credit Suisse’s emergency takeover by UBS last year.
Earlier this month, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority proposed scrapping AT1s altogether, marking the latest in a series of regulatory statements expressing a dislike for the asset class.
Banks would doubtless welcome a bigger role for AT1s
Sceptics say AT1s are too complex and have failed to help save banks from collapse. The instruments are intended to ‘bail-in’ banks by converting into equity or being written down when capital ratios fall below a certain level. In practice, that’s never happened ahead of a bank failure.
Is the growing sense of distrust fair? Some argue that regulators are muddled in their thinking about the part AT1s can play in bank solvency.
“The role of AT1s has been widely misunderstood,” BNP Paribas head of bank advisory Adrian Docherty wrote in a recent note to clients. He argues that regulators ought to think about AT1s not as debt, but as an alternative form of equity.
As good as stocks
In this view, the perpetual nature and discretionary coupons of AT1s mean the instruments can be thought of as contributing to bank solvency from day one, regardless of whether a bail-in ever occurs.
Docherty says regulators’ unwillingness to think of AT1s this way – and so to treat them as core capital – arose because of the accounting treatment for bonds. Fixed income instruments were not written down during the financial crisis, leading regulators to conclude they do not absorb losses.
Accounting treatment, though, is a false guide when it comes to bank solvency, Docherty contends. “The accounting carrying value of AT1s should be irrelevant to a solvency assessment of a bank. All non-debt liabilities provide solvency,” he states.
This is “definitely not a consensus view”, Docherty tells Risk.net. Only a few people veer from the official line that equity should be the sole qualifying form of core regulatory capital.
But a change of mindset could make a big difference. Banks would doubtless welcome a bigger role for AT1s. Issuing the instruments is far cheaper than raising new equity, a point echoed by others in the market. “If you’re going to expect banks to have higher levels of capital, you have to make it viable for them to issue the stuff,” says Tim Skeet, who has been involved in the issuance of AT1s and heads the International Capital Markets Association’s working group on bail-in.
At the same time, improvements to the AT1 structure are possible, Docherty reckons, which could help further. Discretionary coupons – designed to be cancelled to boost a troubled bank’s capital – have never been pre-emptively halted. Critics of the structures say doing so could panic investors and hasten a bank’s demise, in part by destroying economic value for the bondholders.
Docherty – along with others in the industry – proposes making AT1 coupons cumulative. The payments could be deferred, the suggestion goes, protecting the value of the notes, and arguably shielding a bank from the worst extremes of investor panic during a time of stress.
Which is to say, AT1s would look and behave more like equity. As some see it, so they should.
Editing by Rob Mannix
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Can pod shops channel ‘organisational alpha’?
The tension between a firm and its managers can drag on returns. So far, there’s no perfect fix
CDS market revamp aims to fix the (de)faults
Proposed makeover for determinations committees tackles concerns over conflicts of interest
BofA quants propose new model for when to hold, when to sell
Closed-form formula helps market-makers optimise exit strategies
How Risk.net’s robots unlocked Ucits trade data
Machine learning tool helps reveal the largest European derivatives users – and who they trade with
Running the numbers on Barr’s Basel III endgame revisions
Fed vice-chair’s plan to ease capital requirements for big banks still lacks critical details
Another post-Libor rate aims to clear Iosco bar
After two rivals were slapped down by the benchmark overseer last year, will Axi fare differently?
Nvidia is growing up. It’s not settling down
Chip maker is a mega cap that doesn’t act like one
FX forwards dealers face added challenges in P&L analysis
Mark-out tools for forwards and swaps trading may not be a panacea