July 31, 2012
July 30, 2012
July 29, 2012
July 27, 2012
July 26, 2012
July 25, 2012
FT, you´ve forgotten that unencumbered risk taking brought you the banks (and your Britain) to be proud of.
July 24, 2012
"Disaster economics" is also a consequence of regulations that push the banks into what is officially deemed “infallible”.
July 23, 2012
July 21, 2012
July 20, 2012
July 19, 2012
July 18, 2012
By the way, I suppose you know about "risk-adjusted rates of returns"
July 17, 2012
July 16, 2012
Want more opportunities and less inequality? Then scrap capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks.
July 14, 2012
July 13, 2012
What was “not-risky” turned into risky because it was allowed to earn too high returns on bank equity.
July 11, 2012
July 09, 2012
Sir, capital requirements for banks are larger when these lend to something perceived as risky and lower when to something perceived as not risky. It is an utterly absurd proposition, because what is perceived as risky has never caused a major bank crisis. But, much worse, it also signifies that those perceived as risky must pay higher interest rates and those perceived as not risky lower interest rates, than would have been the case absent these regulations. And this amounts to an extraordinarily large official interest rate manipulation… and its effect is way more than some few basis points… and the widening of the spread between risky and not risky according to my calculations is way over hundred basis points.
So let’s see what all those perceived as risky, usually correlated with the have-nots, who already pay higher interest rates, would have to say about regulations that made them pay one percent more in additional interest on all their bank loans, while those perceived as not-risky, usually correlated with the haves, who already pay lower rates, had to pay one percent less.
I have now at least registered a general complaint at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB, established in the Dodd-Frank Act, indicating that this odious discrimination against the “risky” does not seem to be allowed under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).
July 08, 2012
Though a bad outcome is usually associated with risk it does NOT mean it was produced by something "risky"
Sir, “The tale of sober nonconformists... yielding to investment bankers with a thirst for risk” is how John Plender subtitles his “How the traders trumped theQuakers” July 7.
July 07, 2012
July 06, 2012
July 05, 2012
Governments, start by guaranteeing one hour of work per week for absolutely everyone, and then take it from there
July 04, 2012
If European regulators discriminate against Spain and Italy, why should not the citizens do the same?
Sir, Martin Wolf in “A step at last in the right direction”, July 4 writes that “Rational Spaniards and Italians still cannot regard a euro in their banks as being as safe as a euro in a German one, largely because elevated insolvency and break up risks evidently remain” and he forgot to add that this is also because bank regulators feel the same and require any bank to hold more capital when lending to a Spanish or Italian bank, than Germany, just because their respective sovereign has a lower credit rating.
The way we are going, with those highly distortive capital requirements, all our banks are doomed to end up gasping for oxygen and capital on the last officially perceived safe beach… probably the US Treasury or the Bundesbank.
The priority in Europe should be, urgently, to correct these outrights dumb capital requirements.