September 17, 2015
Sir, I have some questions to you in reference to Brooke Masters’ “Women regulate banks run by men” in Your FT Special Report on Women in Business of September 15.
An audit report from the office of inspector general of the FDIC broadly defines predatory lending as "imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers”. Since current risk-weighted capital requirements for banks cause additional discrimination against borrowers deemed as risky, this could also be deemed as predatory regulations.
So Sir, who do you believe is more likely to engage in such regulatory deviances, men or women?
Who is more likely to understand that those financial excesses that can endanger banks is not built with what is perceived as risky but what is erroneously perceived as safe, men or women?
Who is more likely to understand that the cost of introducing such risk-adverse regulations that cuts off bank credit to SMEs and entrepreneurs will be paid by future generations, men or women?
Who is more likely to understand that this sort of discrimination can only increase whatever inequalities exist, men or women?
And when finally understanding how stupid these current Basel Committee regulations are, who is most likely to say “sorry”, and then rectify, men or women?
Sir, just to make it clear, I do not hold any clear opinions in this matter… I am just asking about yours... do you dare giving it?