Sheer regulatory stupidity and statism caused the financial crisis. But that shall not be admitted!

Sir, Lord Adair Turner writes: “The financial crisis began because of dangerous features within the financial system itself. Massively leveraged investment banks engaged in socially useless trading of huge volumes of complex credit securities and derivatives… The excessive risk-taking was allowed by bad regulation justified by flawed economic theory.” “Banks are safer but debt remains a danger” September 12.

Turner, like all other involved, does just not tell it like it is! 

The “massively leveraged investments of banks” were caused, 100%, by the simple fact that regulators allowed for these.

The “socially useless” in complex securities were mortgages awarded to poorer house buyers in the US, the subprime sector. 

The “excessive risk-taking” was in fact an excessive risk aversion that led to the excessive build up of bank exposures to what was considered, decreed, or concocted as safe. 

Yes Turner mentions “bad regulation justified by flawed economic theory”, but there was none of that, there was only sheer stupidity. Like when regulators allow banks to leverage 62.5 times only because a human fallible credit rating agency has assigned it an AAA to AA rating.

And Sir, assigning a 0% risk weights to the sovereign, like to Greece is not based one iota on economic theory but all on flawed statist ideology.

Turner is right though when he writes that the “economic growth has been anaemic despite massive policy stimulus… “That poor performance reflects… inadequate capital regulation.”

Indeed, the distortions that the risk weighted capital requirements produced in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy that have not even been admitted much less were eliminated. “Debt burdens shifting around the world economy from private to public sectors” are just one symptom of those distortions. 

In fact by having raised the floor of bank capital requirements with leverage ratios, on the margins, the roof, the distortions of credit risk weighted capital requirements could be worse than ever.

Turner consoles us with “A deep economic recession, made worse by a large debt overhang, could occur even if not a single big bank went bankrupt or needed to be rescued with public money.”

Not true a deep economic recession, a dysfunctional economy is as dangerous as can be for the banks and for us. That is why the most important question that regulators need to answer before regulating banks is: what is the purpose of banks. Except for being safe mattresses to stack away cash there is not on word on this in the whole immense Basel Committee compendium on rules.

“The increasing role of real estate in modern economies is also crucial.” That is because, by means of giving house purchase access to credit on preferential conditions, a house is no longer just a home it has also become an investment asset. The day houses return to being home only it is going to hurt, a lot. 

“Rising inequality”… with capital requirements that favor the “safer” present over the riskier future, how could that be avoided?

PS. And Sir, you know it, FT has in many ways been complicit in the cover up of our mistakes stories peddled by regulators and their colleagues.

@PerKurowski

When banks can leverage more their equity financing “safe” built houses than financing “risky” job creation, too many young are doomed to live unemployed in our basements

Sir, Bill Mendenhall in a letter of December 18, “Lord Turner got there first on productive credit” mentions a report by Jim Pickard “Labour looks at making mortgage lending harder for banks” December 12. Pickard’s report was not in FT’s US edition.

Pickard wrote: “Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies…The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics.

According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.

The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.

The GFC report also claims that the BoE’s Financial Policy Committee “makes no distinction between unproductive and productive lending” to companies, arguing that the banking sector “should be geared towards stimulating productive investment”.

The report calls for the FPC to use existing powers to vary the risk weights on banks’ exposures to residential property, commercial property and other segments of the economy.

The report acknowledges that such interventions would be seen by critics as risky measures that could “impede the smooth functioning of markets” and distort the efficient allocation of capital. But it warns that “financial stability risks will emerge if an economy loses its competitiveness”.

Sir, you must be aware that this includes much of what I have written to you in thousands of letters, for more than a decades, and that you have decided to ignore.

But, if that report acknowledges that “to vary the risk weights on banks’ exposures to residential property, commercial property and other segments of the economy… would be seen by critics as risky measures that could ‘impede the smooth functioning of markets’’, why does it not then question the distortion the current existing differences in risk weights cause?

Pickard also mentions that the report warn that “financial stability risks will emerge if an economy loses its competitiveness”. No doubt! Banks cannot be the sole triumphant survivors in an economy that is losing strength.

And when now Mendenhall writes that “Lord Turner got there first on productive credit” because in his 2015 book Between Debt and the Devil he pointed out that “the banking sector’s decades-long switch away from lending to businesses towards mortgage lending only serves to inflate asset prices, which leads to property bubbles”, that does not mean that Lord Turner really understood or understands what has happened.

In June 2010, during a conference at the Brooking Institute in Washington DC, I asked Lord Turner “Do you really think the banks will perform better their societal capital allocation role if regulators allow them to have much lower capital requirements when lending to the consolidated sectors than when lending to the developing?

To that Lord Turner (partially) responded: "we try to develop risk weights which are truly related to the underlying risks. And the fact is that on the whole lending to small and medium enterprises does show up as having both a higher expected loss but also a greater variance of loss. And, of course, capital is there to absorb unexpected loss or either variance of loss rather than the expected loss.”

Pure BS! With that Lord Turner evidences he ignores that banks already clear for the higher risks when lending, so that when also clearing for it in the capital, the whole credit allocation process gets distorted… and banks end up lending more to build “safe” downstairs for our children to live in with their parents, and lending less to “risky” entrepreneurs who could get them the jobs to afford buying their own “upstairs” 

No, Lord Turner is just one of those too many regulators that want banks to hold the most capital against what is perceived as risky, while in fact it is when something perceived as safe turns out to be risky, that we would most like that to be the case.

@PerKurowski

Money from heaven can be real or fake and it can be dropped by trusted helicopter pilots or as Universal Basic Income

Sir, Robert Skidelsky writes: Because “there is no assurance that a lot of such helicopter money would not be hoarded…contemporary advocates of helicopter money like Willem Buiter and Adair Turner see it mainly in terms of monetary financing of additional government spending. The government should pay for, say, an investment programme not by issuing debt to the public but by borrowing from the central bank. This will increase the government’s deficit, but not the national debt, since a loan by the central bank to the government is not intended to be repaid. Thus the government acquires an asset but no corresponding liability.” “A tweak to helicopter money will help the economy take off” August 5.

Have these statists gone raving mad? “The government acquires an asset but no corresponding liability?” Is this a Ponzi fiscal revenue scheme?

Have these statists gone raving mad? In this world of cash-strapped citizens would they not know better what to do with their helicopter money than some bureaucrats with other people’s helicopter money?

And besides, helicopter money could be real money and it could be fake money… and only fiscal revenues Ponzi schemers would be thinking of dropping what’s fake.

And besides, helicopter pilots could be trusted, or only doing the drops on their favorite neighborhoods.

So, if you introduce a Pro-Equality tax, and drop all those revenues by means of a Universal Basic Income scheme equally to everyone, both the hoarding and the redistribution profiteering will be small.

Sir, if we are not expecting to profit on the redistribution, is that not what we, poor and rich, all want and need? 

@PerKurowski ©

To drop money on an economy, without cleaning its clogged pipes, is not to give helicopter money a fair chance to work

Sir, Adair Turner the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority writes: “Eight years after the 2008 financial crisis the global economy is still stuck with slow growth, inflation levels that are too low and rising debt burdens. Massive monetary stimulus has failed to generate adequate demand. Money-financed fiscal deficits — more popularly labeled “helicopter money” — seems one of the few policy options left.” “Not too much, not too little — the helicopter drop demands balance” May 22.

What? Should we not first begin by clearly understanding why the stimulus did not work?

Turner writes: “Can we design a regime that will guard against future excess, and that households, companies and financial markets believe will do so. The answer may turn out to be no: and if so we may be stuck for many more years facing low growth, inflation below target, and rising debt levels. But we should at least debate whether the problem can be solved.”

Yes we should really debate! But we should start that debate by questioning the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, those that were first introduced by the regulators almost three decades ago, and later, in 2004, made much more poisonous with Basel II.

And so, just for a starter, I would ask these five questions:

1. Where did you regulator get the idea of being able to regulate our banks without first clearly defining what is the purpose of our banks?

2. Where did you regulator get the idea of giving a risk weight of zero percent to the sovereign, and one of 100 percent to those citizens that define the sovereigns’ strength? Do you really believe bureaucrats know better what to do with other peoples’ money than citizens with their own?

3. Where did you regulator get the idea of assigning a risk weight of 150 percent to those below BB- rated, and only one of 20% to those rated ex ante AAA that you know cause more the major bank crises in the world, when they ex post turn out to be risky?

4. Where did you regulator get the idea that assigning different capital requirements, and thereby different equity leverage possibilities, would not seriously distort the allocation of credit to the real economy?

5. And, where did you regulator get the idea that requiring banks to hold more capital against the risky, would not make it harder for the risky to access bank credit, and thereby increase inequality?

Sir, it is soon a decade since a big bank crisis broke out because of excessive exposures to something that was backed with very little capital, only because it had been perceived, decreed and concocted as safe… and yet that truth is not being discussed. Sorry, that is totally unacceptable. All evidence points to the tragic truth that highly unqualified technocrats are regulating our banks.

I advance the explanation that the previous stimulus had no chance of working because these regulations had clogged some pipes of the economy. And to drop helicopter money on an economy, without cleaning those pipes, is not to give helicopter money even a fair chance to work.

PS. Also, why should we trust the helicopter pilots?

@PerKurowski ©

Martin Wolf, much more than helicopter droppings, we need regulators who understand what banks are for

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “The helicopter drops might not be far away”, February 24.

As you well know I suffer a self-confessed obsession with denouncing the distortion that the credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks produce in the allocation of credit to the real economy. Martin Wolf, though he does not confess it, suffers a similar obsession, with ignoring that distortion.

Here Wolf refers again to “the major governments are able to borrow at zero or even negative real interest rates, long term”. And Wolf refuses to notice that sovereigns, with the low capital requirements they generate for the banks, have been declared by regulators to be preferential bank borrowers. And that is especially important when bank equity is scarce.

If you force the banks to hold the same capital against sovereigns than what they are required to hold against loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, then you would know what the non-subsidized borrowing rates of governments really are.

Or if you allow the banks to hold the same capital against loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs than what they are required to hold against sovereigns and other preferential borrowers, then you would see investments increase. And that without increasing significantly the risk of banks, since loans to “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs never cause major crises.

Wolf refers to the “lunatic…austerity obsession”. No! What’s really lunatic is the regulators’ risk weighing obsession… as if they were Gods.

Wolf should ask the following, for instance to Adair Turner whom he references:

How many bank loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs have not been awarded in America and Europe during the last decade only because of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, ten thousands, hundred thousands, millions?

And so of course we might need helicopter money, that at least would be much better than QEs’ money redirectioned by bank regulators; but more, much more than that, we urgently need bank regulators who understand the concept of: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” (John Augustus Shedd, 1850-1926)

PS. And that would also be the best way to dent inequality: “The function of credit in a simple society is, in fact, remarkably egalitarian. It allows the man with energy and no money to participate in the economy more or less on a par with the man who has capital of his own.” J.K. Galbraith’s “Money: Whence it came where it went” 1975

@PerKurowski ©

We need also new rules to keep bank regulators alert and on their toes

Sir, Lord Adair Turner the Chairman of the FSA sustains “We need new rules to keep bankers honest” December 8. Though hoping one could keep all bankers honest with rules sounds a bit too optimistic, we all agree… that is of course as long as it does not affect the rational capital allocation function of the banks by making the bankers too risk-adverse

But, what about those rules we need to keep bank regulators alert and on their toes? Given that it was the regulators who allowed the banks to leverage 62.5 to 1 when investing in triple-A rated securities or lending to Greece or Irish banks, a rule like that one which he proposes for incompetent bankers, namely that they will not be “allowed to perform a similar function at a bank, unless…” should equally apply to regulators.

The minimum minimorum I would ask all current regulators to do is to go back to bank regulating school and take course 101 and which teaches that the only risks that pose a real systemic risk are those perceived as low… and most specially when perceived as low by regulators and bankers alike.

Without any disrespect, Lord Turner would also benefit immensely from such a course.