How to balance rescue efforts and prevent moral hazard?

Hey, that's a great question, and indeed one of the biggest headaches for global regulators. I'll try to explain it in plain language.

Imagine you have a child at home who loves adventure and constantly climbs to high, dangerous places.

• Bailout: This is when you catch him every time he's about to fall. The result is, he doesn't get hurt, and nothing major happens at home (like breaking expensive furniture).
• Moral Hazard: Here's the problem. Because the child knows you'll always be there to catch him, he becomes bolder and climbs higher, more dangerous places. He thinks, "What's there to be afraid of? I won't get hurt anyway."

It's the same in the financial world. Those "too big to fail" financial giants (like large banks and investment firms) are that adventurous child. The government and central banks are the parents.

If a giant is on the verge of bankruptcy because it played too recklessly (e.g., invested too much in high-risk assets), the government might feel that its collapse would trigger a chain reaction, leading to a meltdown of the entire financial system, a major economic recession, and mass unemployment (this is known as systemic risk). So, the government has no choice but to intervene, using taxpayers' money to rescue it. This is a bailout.

But the side effect of a bailout is moral hazard. Bankers see this and think, "Oh, even if I mess up, the government will foot the bill." So, next time, they'll take even greater risks to chase higher profits. If they win, the profits are theirs; if they lose big, the state bears the burden.

So, how do we strike a balance between the two? It's like parents who need to protect their child from serious harm while also teaching them to be responsible for their own actions. Internationally, common approaches include the following:

1. Establish Rules in Advance and Strengthen Regulation (Stricter 'House Rules')

This is the most important firewall. Instead of waiting for a crisis to bail them out, it's better to prevent them from playing such dangerous games in the first place.

• Increase Capital Adequacy Ratios: Force banks to hold more of their own capital. This is like requiring a child to carry extra "emergency funds" when going on an adventure, so if they lose money, they use their own first, instead of immediately asking their parents for money.
• Stress Tests: Regularly simulate extreme adverse scenarios (e.g., a major economic depression, a housing market crash) to see if banks can withstand them. This is like parents giving their child regular "pop quizzes" to test their ability to survive in adversity.
• Restrict High-Risk Activities: Prohibit banks from using depositors' money for overly speculative ventures. This is like telling a child that their lunch money is only for buying food, not for gambling.

2. Make Bailouts 'Unpleasant' (Catch You, But Make It Hurt)

Even if a bailout is unavoidable, those being rescued shouldn't get off scot-free. The goal is to save the "system," not to save the "wrongdoers."

• Management Ouster: Fire all CEOs and executives who caused the mess. This is essential to make them pay for their decisions.
• Shareholder 'Haircut': Make bank shareholders bear significant losses, even losing everything. Those who invest are responsible. Shareholders shouldn't be able to take dividends when they profit and then walk away when they lose money.
• Claw Back Excessive Bonuses: Recover unreasonable bonuses previously paid out.

The purpose of doing this is to send a signal: we will prevent the entire system from collapsing, but you personally and your investors shouldn't expect to emerge unscathed.

3. Prepare for 'Orderly Liquidation' (Plan B)

This is the core solution to the "too big to fail" problem. Previously, if a large bank was about to collapse, it was like a jumbo jet full of passengers experiencing engine failure over a city center: either spend huge sums to force it to land, or watch it crash, causing massive casualties.

An "Orderly Liquidation Authority" mechanism is like designing an emergency procedure and a dedicated alternate airport for this plane. In case of trouble, it can be "dismantled" smoothly and controllably according to a pre-arranged plan, separating and protecting core critical functions (like deposits and payments), while allowing the remaining parts to go through bankruptcy liquidation, thereby avoiding systemic panic.

4. Introduce 'Bail-in'

This is a more advanced approach than a "bail-out."

• Bail-out (External Rescue): The government (i.e., taxpayers) injects money from the outside to rescue the entity.
• Bail-in (Internal Recapitalization): Instead of involving taxpayers, it forcibly converts the claims of some of the bank's creditors (e.g., institutions that bought bank bonds) into equity in the bank. Simply put, it's like saying, "You lent me money before, and now I can't pay you back. How about this: instead of being a creditor, you become a shareholder directly."

This approach means that the bank's investors and creditors bear the losses themselves to save the bank, rather than ordinary taxpayers footing the bill. This better embodies the principle of "he who benefits bears the risk."

---

In Summary

Striking a balance between bailouts and avoiding moral hazard is like walking a tightrope.

• No bailout at all? This could lead to a complete economic collapse, and the cost would be too high.
• Bail out too easily? This would encourage even more reckless adventures next time.

Therefore, the current global consensus is:

1. Prevention First: Contain risks with strict regulation.
2. Punishment as a Supplement: Even if a bailout is necessary, the institutions and individuals who made mistakes must pay a heavy price.
3. Prepare Contingency Plans: Establish orderly resolution mechanisms to make "too big to fail" a thing of the past.

The ultimate goal is to build a more resilient financial system, one where institutions can fail without dragging the entire society down with them.