Toronto Star

Canada should tax bank debt, instead of bank equity

Liberal party’s proposal a step in wrong direction, though not dangerous

- MARK ROE AND MICHAEL TROEGE CONTRIBUTO­RS

The Liberal party announced its plan to raise the corporate tax rate on large banks and insurance companies from 15 per cent to 18 per cent. Maybe the banks should pay more taxes; maybe not. But if banks need to be taxed more, this is not the right way to do it. It will incentiviz­e them to take on more debt, creating unnecessar­y dangers if an economic crisis hits the Canadian banking system.

The reason is simple: A tax on profits hurts bank equity, while interest on bank debt is tax deductible. This makes bank equity more expensive and makes debt financing more attractive. In countries with high tax rates on profits, companies, including banks, have higher debt levels. And when countries raise corporate tax rates, companies use more debt and less equity to lower their tax bill.

This risk-raising effect is particular­ly relevant for banks. In countries where the tax on profit is low, banks keep equity well above the regulatory minimum, but not in countries where the tax on profit is high. But equity can absorb losses if the banking system is hit hard by an economic downturn. Debt cannot and when banks cannot pay their debts, there are bailouts or cutbacks on lending just when an economy needs it most.

Canada was the only G7 country to avoid a serious crunch in the 2009 worldwide financial crisis. In 2007, as the financial crisis began, the Canadian government committed to reduce tax rates to 15 per cent; one of the lowest levels in the world. This was one reason (regulation is another) why large financial institutio­ns in Canada were better prepared for the crisis than their American or European counterpar­ts.

While the proposed three per cent increase in the corporate tax is not big enough to dangerousl­y damage Canadian banking stability, it is a step in the wrong direction. This does not mean that banks should not contribute more to the COVID reconstruc­tion effort — we offer no opinion on that — but there are safer ways to tax banks more.

After the last financial crisis, many European government­s increased taxes on banks. They did not raise the corporate income tax rate, but imposed “bank levies.” The bank levy idea is simple: Regulators want banks to use less debt, hence, tax policy should make debt and not equity more expensive when the banks are taxed. In most countries using bank levies, the levies were calculated as a small percentage of the bank’s overall debt.

Some levies had particular­ly risky debt taxed more than stable long-term debt, which regulators wanted to encourage. Given that banks have so much more debt than equity to begin with, a very small tax on debt can raise the same amount for the government as a large tax on corporate profits.

For the Royal Bank of Canada, with core equity of 4.8 per cent of total assets and a 18 per cent return on equity, a levy on its debt of 0.03 per cent (or three ten-thousandth of the level of its debt), will raise the same amount for the tax authoritie­s as the proposed three per cent tax on its profits. What’s more, that kind of a levy will push the bank to hold a little more equity, making it a little more stable.

Taxing bank debt rather than taxing bank equity makes sense from another perspectiv­e. Large banks benefit from an implicit government guarantee, because letting them fail in a crisis would be politicall­y impossible and likely economical­ly unwise.

However, this too-big-to-fail guarantee makes bank-issued debt safer to those buying the debt, and that makes bank debt a little less expensive for the issuing bank. This effect further encourages the banks to use debt, not equity. A levy on bank debt would be a shadow price that bank creditors pay for this guarantee.

Bank levies work: Empirical studies have shown that banks react by substituti­ng away from debt financing and toward more equity, which is just what policy-makers should want. After the COVID crisis, some European government­s started to think again about these types of tools. For example, the Swedish government announced plans for a bank levy to help finance the COVID effort. The Canadian government should do the same.

 ?? ANDREW VAUGHAN THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO ?? For the Royal Bank of Canada, with core equity of 4.8 per cent of total assets and a 18 per cent return on equity, a levy on its debt of 0.03 per cent will raise the same amount for the authoritie­s as the Liberal party’s proposed three per cent tax on its profits.
ANDREW VAUGHAN THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO For the Royal Bank of Canada, with core equity of 4.8 per cent of total assets and a 18 per cent return on equity, a levy on its debt of 0.03 per cent will raise the same amount for the authoritie­s as the Liberal party’s proposed three per cent tax on its profits.
 ??  ?? Mark Roe is a law professor at Harvard University.
Mark Roe is a law professor at Harvard University.
 ??  ?? Michael Troege is a professor of finance at ESCP Business School in Europe.
Michael Troege is a professor of finance at ESCP Business School in Europe.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada