February 09, 2017
Sir, Martin Wolf questions the UK government’s “moral choices for a country forced to share out losses imposed by a massive financial crisis and weak subsequent growth [because] the government has decided to give greater priority to the old than to the young, to pensioners than families with children and to the better off than to the relatively worse off” “May’s policies make a mockery of her rhetoric” February 10.
But, when I question the intelligence and the morality of current bank regulations, Wolf ignores it. So Sir, here we go again, for the umpteenth time!
The risk weighted capital requirements for banks, caused a massive financial crisis by giving too large incentives for banks to create excessive bank exposures to what was supposed to be safe, like AAA rated securities and Greece; and with incentives that hinder banks from taking sufficient risks on the future, like lending to “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs, causes weak growth and lack of increased productivity.
That clearly immorally favors the well-off over those poor wanting and needing credit opportunities; just as it immorally favors banks financing the safer past and present, than the riskier future the young need to be financed.
It is also I would say almost immorally stupid; since major bank crises always result from unexpected events, criminal behavior or excessive exposures to what was erroneously perceived or decreed as safe, and never ever from excessive exposures to something perceived as risky when placed on banks’ balance sheets.
Basel I assigned a risk weight of 0% to the Sovereign and one of 100% to us We the People; and it would seem Wolf is unable to grasp the runaway statism of that.
Basel II assigned a risk weight of 20% to what was AAA to AA rated and one of 150% to what is below BB-; and it would seem Wolf is unable to grasp the lunacy of that.