By taking firm pre-emptive action, we have shown what the new judgement-led approach to supervision means in practice. It substitutes substance for process and judgement for box-ticking. We need not more but better regulation and, just as with monetary policy, we have changed the way regulatory decisions are made. The PRA announcement tomorrow is another step in dealing with the legacy of the past. It will make our banking system more resilient and better able to support recovery. But it is too soon to say that the job is done. Many of our major lenders will still be highly levered. The levels of capital required by the Vickers reforms, on the one hand, and the Basel standards for large international banks, on the other, mean that there is clearly some way to go before we can claim to have a really well-capitalised banking system. In future, the FPC and the PRA will work together to conduct regular stress tests of our banks, starting in 2014. Those stress tests will I am sure be made public, and banks will be expected to set out their plans for making up any identified shortfall in capital. Managing this process, and the transition to a higher level of capital, will be key tasks for the FPC and PRA in the coming years. Those who argue that requiring higher levels of capital will necessarily restrict lending are wrong. The reverse is true. It is insufficient capital that restricts lending.
See the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s report and accompanying data file, “Projections for the SOMA Portfolio and Net Income (July 2017).” 15 These liabilities include Federal Reserve notes (U.S. dollar paper currency), the U.S. Treasury’s General  Account, deposits held by designated financial market utilities and government-sponsored enterprises, and reverse repos conducted with foreign and international account holders. On average, these line items summed to over $ billion in 2017, on top of more than $ trillion in Federal Reserve notes. Fed liabilities are discussed more thoroughly in Lorie Logan, “Implementing Monetary Policy: Perspective from the Open Market Trading Desk,” remarks before the Money Marketeers of New York University, New York City, May 18, 2017. 16 It is worth noting that the size and structure of Fed’s securities portfolio and the role the portfolio played have  undergone substantial shifts at various times over the course of the Fed’s history, reflecting changes in policy implementation imperatives. See Meryam Bukhari et al, “The SOMA Portfolio through Time,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics (blog), August 12, 2013. 17 Throughout this discussion, I focus on forward guidance and use of the central bank’s balance sheet (through  large-scale purchases of additional assets and reinvestment policies, but not funding for lending programs) as possible tools. U.S. policymakers have shown little appetite to pursue negative nominal interest rates, although that is another unconventional tool used by several central banks in recent years.