Tea with FT

Having been an Executive Director of the World Bank I know that the columnists of the Financial Times have more voice than what we ever had, and therefore they also need some checks-and-balances.

Currently though, I have been declared a persona non grata by its editor.

Would the child who shouted out “the Emperor is naked” have his observation published in FT? Does the child need a PhD for that?

For more on the how-come and the whats'up see "A Blog is Born" at the very bottom.

The Basel Committee blocks Machievelli´s historical fortunas, while making our mis-fortunas worse.

Why can’t lending to female entrepreneurs be leveraged as much as lending to “infallible” sovereigns?

FT, perhaps you should ask for some time out in order to collect your marbles.

Britain, if you had oil revenue power concentrated like in Venezuela, yours could be even more of a ‘malandro’, a hoodlum, nation.

When fighting inequality, in a sustainable way, it is more important to distribute opportunities than to redistribute income.

Unfortunately, the fact that something is correctly stated does not suffice for it to be correctly understood

To find a solution to Venezuela, you have to be clear about its problem.

What’s the added value of bank regulators who only concern themselves with the risks bankers already perceive?

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks guarantee excessive exposures against little capital

Capitals of ordinary citizens should also have rights to political asylum.

Divorce counselors should urgently remind banks and regulators of the kids, the real economy.

Indeed... why not a tax on too-big-to-fail-banks?

In order to rein in inequality, bank regulations must change too.

FT’s silence makes it unwittingly a lobbyist for “The Infallible” accessing bank credit on preferential terms

Bank regulators, Basel Committee, Financial Stability Board, listen to Violet Crawley “Don’t be defeatist, it’s so middle class.”

No Mohamed El Erian, nowadays, extraordinarily dumb bank regulators, are making it all so much worse.

The “peskiest exceptional” that hit our banking system was dumb Basel Committee regulators.

With bank regulators like the Basel Committee the real economy needs non-banks.

Getting rid of stupid risk-weighted bank capital requirements, that is a dog hair to write home about.

Richard Lambert, before concerning himself with bankers’ education should think about bank regulators’

Tax income from protected intellectual property rights at a higher rate than income from when competing naked in the market

Daniėle Nouy, new chair of Single Supervisory Mechanism, should hear out those like me who detest current bank regulations.

And citizens could sue agencies for too good credit ratings of sovereigns, which caused governments to borrow too much.

Those responsible for Basel II should have been made yesterday’s men years ago

Income derived from protected intellectual property should be taxed at higher rates than income obtained from competing naked.

William Rhodes, worse than regulatory uncertainties is the current regulatory certainty.

Development is about the poor not needing help.

The purpose of a bank is not to fight Aids, but to make profits serving the financing needs of the real economy.

There will not be any normalization of bank credit in Europe until regulators do a 180 degrees volte-face.

When regulators exorcised primal risk-taking from the banks, they doomed our economies to decadence.

Sir, don’t you recognize insanity when you see it?

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks means some will receive too much credit, too cheap, others too little, too expensive.

Real banking reform will only happen when regulators understand and acknowledge what they did wrong, and correct it.

The distortive risk weighted capital requirements for banks will haunt Ben Bernanke and Martin Wolf

Excessive exposures to what is “absolutely safe” by regulated banks could be much more dangerous than whatever lurks in the shadows.

What contains “expected losses” can also contain the “unexpected profits” we need for increased productivity.

OCC, before asking banks to raise their standards of risk management, should stop regulators' distorting parallel risk managing

Kid! If you eat your spinach you must eat your broccoli too.

FT and Martin Wolf are also part of the failing elites who threaten our future.

If some tiny tapering creates much hullabaloo, can you imagine if the Fed would try to soak QEs up?

Banks’ RoRWAs is like allowing kids to grade themselves. Shareholders could, at their own risk do so. Regulators should not!

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks should be based on unexpected losses. They are not!

Instead of labor and capital struggling against each other, perhaps they should discuss what to do with their intermediaries

Current bank fines seem to be neo-medieval indulgences, not paid by the sinners

No Mr. Ralph Atkins. We know precisely that the next financial polar vortex is going to hit… where it always hits!

If only an “intellectual vacuum”, but, sadly, it is worse than that Professor Michael Ignatieff.

If bank liquidity will by design not be able to flow where it is needed in Europe, why more of it?

Professor Thomas Piketty: “Don't be so defeatist, it is so middle class.”

Did the baby-boomers’ parents’ not take risks, or use reverse mortgages in order to extract everything for themselves?

For markets to make the global economy safer, we must allow markets to decide, not the regulators.

Gideon Rachman, on our current front of bank regulations in Basel, neither Sarajevo nor Munich mentalities will do.

If the visible banks are not rationally regulated, there is no choice for the real economy than to run for the shadows.

Though Lady Luck can still work without interference, the invisible hand cannot!

A philosopher’s questions to the Basel Committee on capital requirements for banks and unexpected-losses.