For Poland, the key lesson is that a temporary, well -defined tax on banks can cause short -term discomfort, but it does not have to undermine the banking sector's ability to survive or deter investors permanently – he writes in a commentary for Bankier.pl Roy Regev, a member of the Beta ETF board.
Government interventions on capital markets are never comfortable. Investors' trust is the most important factor, and banks listed on the stock exchange should not face the need to incur sudden additional fees.
However, history shows that when governments in Western countries imposed temporary taxes on extraordinary profits to banks, the market reaction was sharp, but short -term – banks adapted, investors went to the agenda, and the long -term growth on the market was continued.
Because Poland is currently considering introducing a new bank tax, the cases cited below provide a valuable perspective.
Great Britain (1981)
- Motivation: Capturing extraordinary bank profits during recession.
- Tax: A one -time fee of 2.5% from the banks' deposit base.
- Impact on revenues: About -20%.
- Results: Short -term: FTSE Bank index has a slight decrease; It rebuilt quickly. Long -term: banks remained profitable and the sector has developed strongly.
The Margaret Thatcher government imposed a one -off fee of 2.5% from bank deposits, which brought about 400 million pounds, which is about one -fifth of annual profits. The market fears were immediate, but the banks remained profitable, the tax was quickly absorbed, and London financial markets continued expansion in the coming years.
United States (2010)
- Motivation: Recovering the costs of rescue packages from the times of crisis.
- Tax: Fee fee fee (Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee) for banks with liabilities over $ 50 billion.
- Impact on revenues: Small, one -time fee; Minimum influence on profit on action (EPS).
- Results: The S&P Bank index recorded a small, short -term slowdown, and then regained his strength and tripled its value over the decade.
As a result of the global financial crisis, the US proposed a fee for responsibility in financial crisis, charging banks with liabilities over $ 50 billion to recover the costs of rescue packages. Ultimately, instead of introducing this new fee, the Congress prioritized the wider structural financial reform-the DODD-Frank Act, which became the cornerstone of regulation after the crisis.
Canada (2022)
- Motivation: Dividend for reconstruction from profits from the time of pandemic.
- Tax: A one -time tax of 15% on profits above 1 billion C $ + permanent 1.5% supplement.
- Impact on revenues: Small, one -digit percentage.
- Results: The TSX Bank index was stable in a short period and remained strong, and the banks maintained higher valuations.
Canada imposed 15% “dividend from reconstruction” from profits from 2021 above 1 billion c $, plus a permanent 1.5% supplement. Bankers complained that they were elected as the only ones, but investors remained indifferent, and Fitch Ratings considered the impact “irrelevant”. Canadian banks remain one of the most profitable in the world, they are still recorded with high valuations, while paying record dividends.
Spain (2022–2023)
- Motivation: Extraordinary profits from interest.
- Tax: 4.8% Income fee on net interest and commission.
- Impact on revenues: About -5%.
- Results: Short-term: IBEX Banks index dropped by 7-9%; It bounced within a few weeks. Long -term: Spanish banks achieved record profits until 2023.
Spain introduced a two -year tax of 4.8% on income from net interest and banks commission, which was to bring EUR 3 billion. Banks' shares fell by 7-9% after the announcement, but in a few weeks the markets stabilized. By 2023, Spanish banks reported record profits, proving their resistance even under additional fiscal pressure.
Italy (2023)
- Motivation: Excessive profits from high interest margin.
- Tax: 40% from the “surplus” of profits with a limit of 0.1% of total assets.
- Impact on revenues: Moderate, effectively limited by the limit.
- Results: Short-term: FTSE MIB Banks index fell by about 5-10%, and then quickly rebuilt. By 2024, banks resumed the payment of higher dividends than before tax.
Italy surprised markets with 40% tax on excessive profits of banks, which resulted in the evaporation of EUR 10 billion of market value in one commercial day. The government quickly imposed a limit on a fee of 0.1% of assets, soothing fears, and in a few days banks rebuilt. Until 2024, UniCredit and Intes Sanpaolo were not only stable, but paid higher dividends than before, which emphasizes the temporary nature of disruption.
What can Polish investors learn?
Capital markets do not like unexpected taxes, but if the funds are limited and the banks are fundamentally healthy, the long -term impact is negligible. In each case, sharp short -term declines or loud protests took place, but the banks continued to work and even prosper. Over time, indexes and valuations returned to the state in which they were driven by wider economic foundations, not taxes themselves.
For Poland, the key lesson is that a temporary, well -defined tax on banks can cause short -term discomfort, but it does not have to undermine the ability of the banking sector to survive or deter investors permanently. History shows that if such measures are clear, limited and constitute a one -time correction, and not endless interference, banks and markets adapt to the situation.
Roy Regev, member of the Beta ETF board
