Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Northern Rock: No Need to Panic
In the Times of London today, Anatole Kaletsky worries about the magnitude of a potential mass liquidation of Northern Rock's liabilities:
Of course, the Bank and the Government would be deeply embarrassed if small depositors lost money. But what about depositors with £100,000, or £1 million, or financial institutions with 100 times that much? Darwinism supplies an easy answer: it is rational for all substantial depositors to withdraw their money – and to do so at once.
What if this happens? Northern Rock, when it last reported, had £34 billion of customer accounts and deposits from other banks. To repay this money, it would have to turn to the Bank of England for what would probably be the largest loan ever advanced by a Government to a private company anywhere in the world. What would be the political reaction to such a loan? Especially when it turned out that Northern Rock’s collateral included buy-to-let and unsecured lending in a housing market on the brink of a freefall?
I'm more sanguine. For one thing, players in the interbank market are not depositors. Yes, we have seen long queues outside Northern Rock branches from retail depositors wanting to withdraw their money. But big banks don't panic in that way and try to call their interbank loans without thinking long and hard about the systemic consequences of such an action.
And in this sense, Northern Rock's vulnerabilities are also its strengths. The reason that NR is in trouble is that it is a huge mortgage lender, but the mortgages it has written are much larger than its deposit base. So it has to fund its mortgages in the wholesale market, by borrowing money from other banks. As that market has dried up, it has had to turn for emergency funding to the Bank of England.
But the disconnect between Northern Rock's assets and its deposit base is also the reason why a run on the bank by its depositors will not have the drastic systemic consequences that a run on most high-street banks would: NR's deposit base simply isn't big enough for that. In turn, this means that there's little reason for NR's interbank counterparties to panic and start calling their loans, even if that's possible – not when the worst-case scenario for NR still leaves it with a positive equity value of 180p per share. Yes, that's a lot lower than where the shares are trading now. But so long as it's greater than zero, everything should be OK.






