准备金报酬（再议）

UK | Banks Reserve remuneration (again) This is the topic that never quite goes away. The latest revival is courtesyof the open letter published by the Reform Party to the Bank of Englandarguing for the abolition of interest on reserves. This isn't new. However,with Reform leading in many polls, the noise is getting louder, amplified bysome in the US seeking to do the same as part of the "Big, Beautiful Bill". The numbers.As of last week, reserve liabilities at the BOE totalled £671bn. Remunerated atbase rate, the associated interest cost is £29bn per annum. But by the end of 2026, balancesmay have dropped to c.£500bn courtesy of TFSME repayments and QT. Applying forward rateexpectations, that implies a cost of c.£18bn, smaller but still material in the context of the UK'sfiscal position. Reducing reserve remuneration can be done, in our view. By continuing to remuneratemarginal reservesat base rate, we believe the BOE could pay nothing on a lower tier whilemaintaining control of overnight rates. Neither could commercial banks, at the aggregatelevel, offload their reserves for other liquid assets. The BOE currently operates a supply-drivenframework with c.85% of reserves gilt-backed. Any attempt by an individual bank to reduce itsreserves would necessarily result in an increase elsewhere. For the same reason though, thecalibration would need to be carefully managed. Too small a marginal tier and banks mightattempt to dump cash balances in a (zero-sum) attempt to access their unremunerated tier. The concept becomes more difficult over time.As QT progresses and the reserve baseshrinks towards £500bn, the BOE expects increased take-up of repo-backed reserves, a"demand-driven" framework. But no bank will want to draw zero-rated reserves unless theyhave to.The BOE could enforce a zero-rated minimum reserve requirement.That might beacceptable at low levels (c.f. the ECB and Swiss Central Bank) but a sizeable MRR would lockup liquidity, be ineligible for LCR calculations, disincentivise growth, and be seen for what it is:an involuntary tax on the banks sector. It is hard to justify a large zero-rated tier.QE dramatically increased the cash held by thecommercial banks (assets) on which they earn base rate. But it also increased deposits(liabilities) on which they pay interest. Certainly, banks have benefited from the spread betweenthe two. But this is a function of the liquidity created by QE and not a transfer from the publicpurse. Indeed, QE simply swapped long for short duration Government borrowing, leading toa remittance of £124bn in 2012-22 that has now gone the other way. Charging the banks forthis interest rate risk would be hard to justify, even more so if increasingly large repo-backedreserves (for which banks will pay at or above base rate) are also unremunerated. Significant potential consequences.Banks acted as conduits for QE (and participated inTFSME) on the basis that reserves created to fund both would be remunerated at base rate. Aretrospective change would risk bank participation in future schemes. It could also hurt newerentrants that generate a disproportionate amount of interest income from reserves. And itwould hurt customers because banks would likely reduce savings rates, increase loan pricing,and potentially introduce fees on current accounts. Will it happen?We doubt a sizeable zero-rate band will be introduced in the near-term. A smalltier (c.5-10% of reserves) is possible, saving HMT £1-2bn per annum and impacting sector PBTby 2-4%. But with the total tax rate of UK-based banks already the highest of any major globalfinancial centre, and BOE policymakers clearly against such a proposal, we still do not believethe risk is worth taking. Jonathan Pierce * | Equity Analyst+44 (0)20 7548 4079 | jpierce@jefferies.com Priya Rathod * | Equity Associate+44 (0) 20 7029 8020 | prathod@jefferies.com Analyst Certification: I, Jonathan Pierce, certify that all of the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject security(ies) andsubject company(ies). I also certify that no part of my compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations orviews expressed in this research report. I, Priya Rathod, certify that all of the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject security(ies) and subjectcompany(ies). I also certify that no part of my compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or viewsexpressed in this research report. Registration of non-US analysts:Jonathan Pierce is employed by Jefferies International Limited, a non-US affiliate of Jefferies LLC and is not registered/qualified as a research analyst with FINRA. This analyst(s) may not be an associated person of Jefferies LLC, a FINRA member firm, and therefore maynot be subject to the FINRA Rule 2241 and restrictions on communications with a