Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • September 2015
09

Losing out on lending

Open-access content Thursday 27th August 2015

Shyam Mehta argues that banks should use fat-tailed investment models to more accurately assess the risks involved

2

It is common knowledge that in the UK the amount of bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and of mortgage lending to individuals has declined since the financial crisis. The question is why.

A simple answer is that the amount of capital required, by the regulators and under the Basel framework, to support such lending has increased sharply. If capital is scarce and capital requirements have, say, doubled for any given volume of lending, then the volume of lending will halve. I do not believe that this is the answer.

First, I believe that banks were dramatically underestimating the amount of capital needed to do business prior to the financial crisis. The risk of a financial meltdown was being underestimated. 

The use of the normal distribution to represent fluctuations in business conditions is inappropriate, and one needs heavily skewed distributions such as those that underlie the 'Andrew Smith investment model', developed and promoted by Deloitte. 

When building fat tails into an investment model it causes one to quickly reassess the amount of capital needed for risk events. The regulators are merely forcing banks to recognise the fundamental capital that is needed to support lending - even though they do not require the use of fat-tailed distributions to assess bank capital needs.

Second, with a free banking market - in terms of price as distinct from capital requirements, which may or may not bite - it is all a question of price. If banks have had to reassess the amount of capital needed to support a given volume of lending, all that happens is that the price of this given supply increases - capital will be found if it is profitable to use it - and shifts the supply/demand curve. This is a second-order effect and there is no reason for lending to halve. 

If lending was profitable, prices would have risen, lending would have been maintained at broadly pre-crash levels, and the capital needed would have been found.

Unfortunately, not only do banks not know how to assess their fundamental capital needs - because they do not use fat-tailed investment models when assessing this capital - they also do not know how to price their products. Contrary to the thinking of a typical bank, capital is cheap. This is because bank capital earns an investment return corresponding to the riskiness of the underlying assets backing this capital, and so the cost of holding an extra £1 of capital in a world of no taxes is nil. With taxes but low investment returns, such as we see today, there is a small, less than 1% per annum, net cost of holding capital. Against this, although banks assign a high net cost to holding capital, they assign a low cost to doing business. This is again because they do not use fat-tailed investment models when assessing the risks of lending. 

It was this underestimation of risk that led to the financial crisis - aside from regulatory failure in creating a boom/bust credit cycle, in not providing enough liquidity into the system and in not spotting that banks were over-stretching themselves. So, we can say that lending products are now more correctly priced, with too high an assessed capital cost being offset by too low a risk of doing business cost, but that there is opportunity for new entrants to come into the market and more keenly price certain products.

Well, the question therefore remains: Why has lending fallen? I believe one needs to look at the two distinct marketplaces separately. 

In the mortgage market the supply of homes has fallen and there is therefore less need for mortgage finance.

In the SME market, there are two main factors. First, there is increased peer-to-peer lending although it is not clear how much of a factor this is. Second, businesses are cost sensitive. They borrow to invest. Investment returns have declined, but borrowing costs have shot up as discussed above. The supply/demand curve has adjusted and markets now clear at a much lower volume of lending.


Shyam Mehta is a former investment banker and insurance risk practitioner

This article appeared in our September 2015 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
09

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Make the switch from Pensions > Life Insurance

Manchester
Excellent Salary + Bonus (study support if required)
Reference
121040

Senior Reinsurance Pricing Actuary

City of London
Up to £130,000 + Benefits + Bonus
Reference
121063

Interim - Reporting Actuary - Inside IR35 - Nearly/Newly Qualified

London
Discussed Upon Application
Reference
121059
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2021 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200