Skip to main content
Japan's Lost Decades

The 1997–98 Japanese Banking Crisis

Pomegra Learn

When Did Japan's Banking System Finally Confront Its Crisis?

By 1997, Japan had been managing — or more precisely, avoiding managing — its banking system's bad loan problem for approximately six years since the bubble's burst. The policy of forbearance had contained visible crisis at the cost of impeding genuine recovery. In November 1997, the facade shattered. Within the space of a single month, a mid-size securities firm, one of Japan's major regional banks, and one of its four largest securities firms all failed. In 1998, two of Japan's six "long-term credit banks" were nationalized. The fiction of a sound banking system was replaced by the reality of a banking crisis that required government intervention on an enormous scale.

The 1997–98 Japanese banking crisis: The sequence of major financial institution failures — Sanyo Securities, Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, and Yamaichi Securities in November 1997, followed by Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan and Nippon Credit Bank in 1998 — that forced the Japanese government to move from forbearance to active bank resolution and recapitalization.

Key Takeaways​

  • Sanyo Securities' failure in November 1997 triggered the first default in the Japanese interbank call money market, causing a credit freeze among financial institutions.
  • Hokkaido Takushoku Bank (Takugin) — a city bank and Hokkaido's leading financial institution — failed November 17, 1997, the first major city bank failure in postwar Japan.
  • Yamaichi Securities — one of Japan's four major securities firms with ¥30 trillion in client assets — announced voluntary closure November 24, 1997.
  • The Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan (LTCB, Nagasaki Kinko) was nationalized in October 1998; Nippon Credit Bank followed in December 1998.
  • The government provided ¥60 trillion (approximately $500 billion) in government guarantees and capital through the Financial Revitalization Law (October 1998) and Early Strengthening Law — roughly 12 percent of Japan's annual GDP.
  • The Financial Services Agency (FSA), established June 1998 as a successor to the Ministry of Finance's banking supervision function, brought more rigorous standards for loan classification.
  • Resolution of the banking crisis finally began in earnest in 1998–2002, with meaningful bad loan writeoffs, bank mergers, and capital injections — seven to eight years after the bubble burst.

The Sanyo Securities Trigger​

Sanyo Securities, a mid-size Japanese securities firm, filed for bankruptcy protection on November 3, 1997. The specific significance of this failure was not its size — Sanyo was not systemically critical — but its effect on the interbank call money market.

The call money market is where financial institutions lend short-term reserves to each other — the Japanese equivalent of the federal funds market. It operates on trust: participants lend overnight without collateral, relying on counterparties' solvency. When Sanyo Securities defaulted on its call market borrowings, lenders who had not received repayment were left with unexpected losses. More importantly, every other call market participant began questioning whether other counterparties might also fail to repay.

The result was a freeze in the call money market. Banks and securities firms that normally lent excess reserves overnight stopped doing so. Institutions that needed to borrow funds faced tight or unavailable credit. The Japanese interbank market's first post-war default had destroyed the trust that made the market function.

This interbank credit freeze — analogous to the Lehman Brothers-induced market freeze in September 2008, though smaller in scale — was the immediate trigger for the November 1997 crisis. Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, which had been struggling with bad loans but had maintained market access, found that access severely tightened following the Sanyo default.

The Hokkaido Takushoku Bank Failure​

Hokkaido Takushoku Bank — universally known as "Takugin" — was one of Japan's thirteen city banks and the dominant financial institution of Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost main island. Founded in 1900, it had a century-long relationship with the Hokkaido economy and held approximately ¥10 trillion in deposits.

Takugin had made particularly aggressive real estate loans during the bubble years and had been carrying impaired loans on its books for years. Its bad loan problem was known but had been managed through the standard forbearance approach. The November 1997 interbank credit crisis, triggered by the Sanyo default, made it impossible for Takugin to continue rolling its short-term funding.

On November 17, 1997, Takugin announced it was unable to continue operations. It was the first failure of a major city bank in postwar Japan — a profound shock to a country that had assumed the implicit government guarantee of major financial institutions was unconditional.

The Takugin failure was managed through a transfer of deposits and performing loans to a newly established bridge bank, the Hokkaido Bank (a separate institution from Takugin). The bad loans were transferred to the Deposit Insurance Corporation for eventual resolution. Depositors were protected; shareholders and subordinated bondholders were wiped out.

The Yamaichi Securities Shock​

One week after the Hokkaido Takushoku failure, on November 24, 1997, Yamaichi Securities announced its voluntary closure. Yamaichi was one of Japan's "Big Four" securities firms (alongside Nomura, Daiwa, and Nikko), with ¥30 trillion in client assets and approximately 7,500 employees.

The announcement was accompanied by extraordinary scenes: Yamaichi's president, Shohei Nozawa, held a press conference at which he wept openly while announcing the closure, saying the employees had "done nothing wrong." The images of his distress were broadcast across Japan and became an iconic representation of the human consequences of the financial crisis.

Yamaichi had hidden approximately ¥260 billion in liabilities — losses from client transactions that had been transferred off-balance-sheet to related companies ("tobashi" practices) to conceal them from regulators. This concealment had been ongoing for years. The eventual discovery and public revelation of the hidden liabilities destroyed confidence and made continued operation impossible.

The Yamaichi closure was handled through the orderly transfer of client accounts and assets to competing securities firms. Client assets — the ¥30 trillion in securities held in custody for clients — were properly segregated and transferred. The firm's own liabilities, including the hidden tobashi losses, were absorbed by shareholders and creditors.

The Long-Term Credit Bank Nationalizations​

The 1998 nationalizations of the Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan (LTCB) and Nippon Credit Bank (NCB) represented the most significant government intervention in the banking sector since the occupation period.

LTCB was one of Japan's three specialized long-term credit banks, founded in 1952 to channel long-term investment funds to Japanese industry during the reconstruction period. By the 1990s, its original mandate was largely obsolete, and it had expanded into real estate lending and other commercial activities with poor results. By 1998, its reported bad loans were approximately ¥3 trillion, and estimates of its true capital deficiency ranged up to ¥3.7 trillion.

LTCB was nationalized under the Financial Revitalization Law in October 1998. The government acquired all shares (at zero value — shareholders were wiped out), injected capital, and began the process of disposing of bad assets. In 2000, LTCB was sold to a consortium of foreign investors led by Ripplewood Holdings (a US private equity firm) for approximately ¥121 billion — a sale that generated controversy in Japan but successfully transferred the bank to new management. The bank was rebranded Shinsei Bank (literally "New Life Bank") and eventually became profitable under its new ownership.

NCB was nationalized in December 1998 under similar circumstances and eventually merged into other institutions.

The Policy Response: Financial Revitalization Laws​

The November 1997 crisis finally produced the substantive government action that the forbearance approach had avoided for seven years. In October 1998, the Diet passed two laws that together provided ¥60 trillion ($500 billion) in government funds:

Financial Revitalization Law: Established mechanisms for government acquisition and resolution of failed banks, bridge bank arrangements, and temporary nationalization. The law ended the ambiguity about whether the government would allow major bank failures and provided clear resolution procedures.

Early Strengthening Law: Allowed healthy (or near-healthy) banks to receive government capital injections without first failing — a preventive recapitalization mechanism. Banks receiving capital had to meet certain requirements including management changes and restructuring plans.

The ¥60 trillion commitment — approximately 12 percent of annual GDP — was a genuinely extraordinary fiscal commitment, finally accepting the direct cost of bank resolution that the forbearance approach had been designed to avoid.

The Financial Services Agency​

One of the most important institutional changes from the 1997–98 crisis was the establishment of the Financial Services Agency (FSA) in June 1998. The FSA took over banking supervision from the Ministry of Finance, which had been criticized for its close relationships with banks and its role in enabling the forbearance approach.

The FSA brought significantly more rigorous standards for loan classification and loss recognition. Where the Ministry of Finance's approach had relied on discretionary judgments that typically favored conservative (from the bank's perspective) loss recognition, the FSA imposed objective criteria and conducted more aggressive inspections.

The transition to FSA supervision was not instantaneous — the FSA itself had to develop institutional capacity, and the political economy of banking supervision did not transform overnight. But the change represented a genuine institutional improvement and the beginning of the more honest accounting that real recovery required.

Common Mistakes in Analyzing the 1997–98 Crisis​

Treating November 1997 as the beginning of the banking crisis. The banking crisis began when the bubble burst in 1990–91. What November 1997 represented was the public emergence of a crisis that had been growing for seven years behind a policy facade of forbearance. The surprise was not that Japanese banks had problems but that the problems had been concealed for so long.

Assuming the nationalization of LTCB and NCB resolved all banking problems. The 1998 nationalizations and capital injections addressed the most visibly failed institutions. The broader banking sector continued to carry significant bad loan burdens through the early 2000s; the full resolution of the bad loan problem required the efforts of FSA governor Heizo Takenaka in 2002–2003, who imposed more aggressive classification standards and capital requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions​

What happened to Yamaichi's employees? Approximately 7,500 Yamaichi employees needed to find new positions. Many moved to other securities firms. The Japanese financial sector was contracting rather than expanding at the time, so reabsorption was difficult. Some employees faced significant income reductions or career disruptions.

Was the Yamaichi tobashi practice unique? Tobashi — the practice of transferring client losses to related companies to conceal them — was not unique to Yamaichi. Investigations in the late 1990s found similar practices at other Japanese financial firms. Nomura Securities was sanctioned for similar practices involving relationships with organized crime (sokaiya). The revelations reflected a broader cultural pattern in Japanese finance of managing appearances rather than genuinely addressing problems.

Did the ¥60 trillion government commitment provide sufficient funds? The ¥60 trillion in committed funds proved approximately adequate for the immediate recapitalization needs. The broader bad loan problem required additional measures through 2002–2004 as the FSA's more aggressive classification standards revealed additional impairment. Total public costs of the banking crisis resolution have been estimated at approximately ¥10–20 trillion in actual cash outlays, substantially less than the ¥60 trillion in committed guarantees and capital.

Summary​

The November 1997 banking crisis — Sanyo Securities, Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, and Yamaichi Securities all failing within weeks — was the moment when Japan's forbearance policy collapsed. Seven years of concealed bad loans, implicit government guarantees, and regulatory tolerance finally gave way to actual failures that required government action. The response — ¥60 trillion in committed funds, new resolution legislation, and the establishment of the FSA — finally began the process of cleaning up the banking sector that should have begun in 1991 or 1992. The delay of seven to eight years between the bubble's burst and the crisis's acknowledgment represents the core policy error of Japan's lost decade, and the comparison to the more rapid US resolution in 2008–09 provides the strongest evidence that speed of banking sector recognition and recapitalization is a first-order determinant of post-crisis economic trajectory.

Next​

→ Japan's Policy Responses: From ZIRP to Abenomics