September 30, 2015
Sir, Pilita Clark reports on how Mark Carney, the current chairman of the Financial Stability Board “warns investors of ‘huge’ hit as climate action ‘strands’ fossil fuel assets” September 30.
Because nervous regulators thought bankers did not see or responded sufficiently to the credit risks that were perceived, they forced banks to hold more capital when lending to the risky, than when lending to the supposedly safe, like to Sovereigns and members of the AAArisktocracy.
And so why then did not Carney long ago warn all aspiring “risky” entrepreneurs to forget their plans, since they could not any longer count on fair access to bank credit?
And is not Carney Canadian? Should he really be talking down the value of “stranded fossil fuel assets” just like that? It sounds a bit irresponsible to me.
And if Carney is so concerned, why does he then not require banks to hold capital based on the risk of the sustainability of planet earth?
For instance, if banks when financing something that supposedly helped sustainability were allowed to hold less capital, and could thereby earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity, that would at least induce them to serve a purpose. Basing it like now solely on perceived credit risk does not. It is both useless and dangerous… dangerous because big bank crisis never result from excessive financing of what is perceived risky, but from excessive financing to what is erroneously perceived as very safe.
Disclosure: My granddaughters are Canadian.