January 23, 2023
“We have inherited democratic capitalism from the struggles of our predecessors. We must reform and protect it for our descendants.” Martin Wolf, “In defence of democratic capitalism” FT January 21, 2023
Yes, indeed, but Sir, sadly, we’ve already lost too much of it. When I see bank capital requirements with decreed risk weights of 0% government and 100% citizens, I see Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Mussolini decreed weights… I see populism… I see the empowerment of an authoritarian bureaucracy autocracy… I see the dangerous and weakening distortion of the allocation of bank credit.
And that’s why, even to the point of obsession (as Wolf once mentioned) I’ve been fighting the risk weighted bank capital (equity / shareholders’-skin-in-the-game) requirements, first introduced 1988, as Basel I. These allow banks to leverage more their shareholders’-skin-in-the-game, and thereby earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when financing what’s perceived (or decreed) as safe, than when financing what’s perceived as risky.
That de facto decreed the more creditworthy as more worthy of credit and the less creditworthy as less worthy of credit.
Wolf opines “It is possible for example to limit macroeconomic instability by reducing reliance on debt-fuelled demand and making the financial system more robust”. Yes, but for that Wolf must try to understand that what’s “safe” e.g., government debts and residential mortgages are more like demand-pushing-carbs while, what’s “risky” e.g., loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs, could be classified as supply-producing-proteins.
These regulations were sold as making our bank systems safer. What nonsense. The large exposures that have caused all major bank crises have always been built up with assets perceived (or now decreed) as safe, and never ever with assets perceived as risky.
The real reason for it all was confessed by Paul Volcker in his 1988 autobiography “Keeping at it”: “Assets for which bank capital requirements were nonexistent, were what had the most political support; sovereign credits and home mortgages… A ‘leverage ratio’ discouraged holdings of low-return government securities.”
Were those regulations agreed upon in a democratic way? Absolutely not. For a starter these should not be able to clear the American Founding Fathers’ US Constitution.
Wolf mentions his family’s history: “In May 1940, as the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, my mother escaped from the country in a trawler hijacked by her father, a self-made fish merchant. Her father, one of nine, asked all his wider family to join them on the journey to England. None did: they were all slaughtered in the Holocaust.”
The morning after, everything’s clear but, the night before, who was the real risk-taker, Martin Wolf’s grandfather or the other eight who stayed behind?
In the same way the morning after a bank crisis, what’s dangerous becomes crystal clear. But what’s usually forgotten by Monday morning quarterbacks, is that the large exposures that caused the crisis were built up with assets perceived (or now decreed) as very safe.
January 11, 2023
Creditworthiness should be grounded on what’s worthy of credit.
Sir, Martin Wolf writes “The vicious circle in which low creditworthiness begets unaffordable spreads, which beget debt crises and even lower creditworthiness.” “The threat of a lost decade in development”, Jan 11, 2023
NO! That vicious circle begins with too high decreed government creditworthiness.
November 2004, the Financial Times published a letter in which I asked “How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector?”
Sincerely, anyone lending money to a developing country that has adopted Basel Committees’ bank regulations, based on that its bureaucrats know better what to do with that credit they’re not personally responsible for than e.g., its small businesses and entrepreneurs, deserves losing money.
When participating in the Sustainable Debt Levels (SDL) debate my opinion was always: “There cannot be a road more conducive to debt turning unsustainable, than to award credits just because they are sustainable.”
And what is development much about? The willingness to take risks. Where does Mr. Wolf thinks the western world would be with the current risk weighted bank capital requirements? In Nirvana or still among the emerging developing nations?
Friedrich List wrote that free trade was the means through which an already industrialized country “kicks away the ladder by which it has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after it.” If we were to paraphrase List, if the high-income countries want to help, don’t kick away that ladder of risk taking that made them high-income.
1987, in reference to that credit risk aversion coming out of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, I ended my first Op-Ed ever with:
“If we insist on maintaining a firm defeatist attitude which definitely does not represent a vision of growth for the future, we will most likely end up with the most reserved and solid banking sector in the world, adequately dressed in very conservative business suits, presiding over the funeral of the economy. I would much prefer their putting on some blue jeans and trying to get the economy moving.”
Sir, I feel that paragraph being just as valid as then… and much worse, not only to developing nations.
PS. At the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Developing at the United Nations, New York, October 2007, this is the document I presented:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)