May 31, 2013
May 30, 2013
Professor David Camroux, referring to a Robin Hood tax, seems to be just another applicant to the position of a Sheriff of Nottingham.
May 29, 2013
May 27, 2013
May 25, 2013
May 24, 2013
May 23, 2013
Get over it. Set a high credible capital requirement for banks and ask for it to be met within a very short time.
FTT is no longer a “Robin Hood tax”, now just another “King John tax”, to be collected by another Sheriff of Nottingham
May 22, 2013
If climate change believers do not abandon their holier than thou attitude, climate skeptics will always win.
May 21, 2013
May 20, 2013
May 15, 2013
Again, we would do better with capital requirements for banks based on sustainability of earth and job creation ratings
May 14, 2013
May 10, 2013
Regulators, and FT journalists, suffer from cognitive overload and malfunctioning prefrontal cortex.
May 09, 2013
May 08, 2013
Higher bank capital ratios without eliminating distortions based on perceived risks, would make banks riskier
Sir, John Plender refers both to the draft legislation advanced by US senators David Vitter and Sherrod Brown, and to Anad Admati’s and Martin Hellwig’s “The bankers’ New Clothes”, in order to point out that “Support is growing for higher bank capital ratios”, May 8.
Plender unfortunately entirely misses what is most important. Many have asked for higher capital requirements but, what sets those he references apart from many others is that they also want to do away with the pillar, and the pride and joy of Basel regulations, namely that the capital requirements are to be based on perceived risk.
Let me ask Plender. Today, according to Basel II, a bank can hold some zero risk weighted sovereign assets against zero capital, while giving a loan to a business requires it to hold 8 percent of it in capital. If tomorrow the risk-weights for some sovereign would remain zero, but banks were instead required to hold 30 percent against a loan to a business, would the distortions be smaller or larger?