Should not a “State of the European Union” analysis be an indispensable document, when searching for a solution to the Brexit vs. Remain quantum entanglement?

George Parker and Alex Barker discussing the “brutal reception in cabinet and in parliament the Brexit withdrawal agreement received mention one cabinet minister saying: “The people who are criticising the deal don’t have any alternative, that was true before the Chequers meeting, it was true before this week’s cabinet meeting and it’s still true now. People can suck their teeth and say it’s a betrayal and talk about vassalage, but they don’t seem to have given any thought to what the alternative might be.” “May heads for a hard sell” November 17.

In terms of Brexit mechanism that might be true, but there is of course also the alternative of holding another referendum, which might provide a Remain instead. 

What I sorely miss in the whole Brexit vs. Remain heated discussions is a “State of the European Union” analysis that would help to bring some perspective on it all, and that could also be useful to all Europeans, independent from what happens down the line.

I say that because I sincerely think the EU is not doing well, and that there are huge problems brewing there, which sometimes, like yesterday, have me thinking that though Brexit is an absolutely awful solution, a Remain could be even worse.

Sir, could you imagine the national embarrassment for Britain to change its mind and go for a Remain, and then finding EU gone? 

PS. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.

@PerKurowski

Brexit is sure a bad idea, but how can you be sure Remain is not even a worse one?

Sir, Alex Barker and Jim Brunsden quote Catherine Barnard, a professor of EU law at Cambridge university: “Never before has a treaty been constructed of this kind,” “The EU is a unique organization. What the Brexit process has revealed is just how deep the integration is in reality.” “Accord leaves Britain bound to Brussels” November 16.

On the first, indeed, to for instance adopt a Euro in order to push forward a union instead of letting a union produce a common currency, is a truly strange way to construct a union.

But, on the second “how deep the integration is in reality” I beg to differ. Having a member like Greece walk the plank, especially as EU authorities were most to blame for its problems, is not the doings of a real deep union.

Sir, let me refer to a speech delivered by Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, at the Frankfurt European Banking Congress, given today, “The outlook for the euro area economy”. 

It concluded with: “I want to emphasize how completing Economic and Monetary Union has become more urgent over time not less urgent – and not only for the economic reasoning that has always underpinned my remarks, but also to preserve our European construction.”

I agree, because as is, Italy will not walk the plank as Greece did, and that could bring on the end of the euro, as we now know it, which could bring an end to the European Union, as we know now it, or, clearer yet, as we perhaps really don’t know it.

Sir, whether Brexit or Remain supporters, does not Britain (and all other UE members) have the right to know what “completing Economic and Monetary Union” to “preserve EU our European construction”, which Draghi urges really entails?

Draghi also mentioned “as urgent as the first steps were in euro area crisis management seven years ago”, “The completion of the banking union in all its dimensions, including risk reduction, and the start of the capital markets union through implementing all ongoing initiatives by 2019”

Sir, does not Britain, a nation where banking means so much, have the right to know exactly what that entails so that it banks are not castrated in the process?It is not just me a foreigner asking. Let me remind you that seven years ago, Alex Barker in [Mr. Brexit Negotiator] “Barnier vs. the Brits” wrote about the fears of Sir Mervin King that Brussels reforms would reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals.

Draghi also said: “Household net worth remains at solid levels on the back of rising house prices and is adding to continued consumption growth.” 

That is an untrue statement. A much truer one would be: “Household net worth remains very fragile since it rides almost exclusively on rising house prices, as a consequence of the distortion produced by too much and too favorable financing being offered for the purchase of houses. A distortion that helped to anticipate much of the consumption we have seen, but that will come back and hurt house owners, whether by house prices falling, or hurt everyone, by inflation eroding our real consumption power.

Sir, when that happens, and the crisis needs to be managed so as to impede the destruction of all social cohesion, would you prefer to do that on a national level, instead of on the level of a union in which very few know how to sing its anthem?

Sir, I’m no one to give a recommendation but, should not the Brexit vs. Remain discussions refer more fundamentally to the future of Britain and of EU, instead of being turned into another profitable venture for some opportunistic polarization profiteers?

Should not FT inform its readers, in a much more balanced way, of all challenges that lay ahead, not only those of a Brexit but also those of a Remain?

A long time friend and admirer of Britain 

@PerKurowski

In not listening sufficiently to the European people, which includes the British, resides great risks for the two technocrats negotiating Brexit

Sir I refer to George Parker and Alex Barker discussing Michel Barnier and David Davis, “Meet the Brexit negotiators” March 17.

For me the best of the Winter Olympics 2018 was seeing Sofia Goggia singing her Italian national anthem with such an enthusiasm. I am sure Europe has not been able to remotely capture the hearts of Europeans in such a way; and the reason for that must foremost be the technocratic haughtiness of Brussels.

I have not the faintest idea if it rests on some real event, it most probably doesn’t, but the most powerful moment depicted in “The darkest hour”, was when Churchill journeyed the London Underground to hear the voice of regular people in the subway.

And that is what I have a feeling neither Davis nor Barnett have done enough of. Whatever the result of Brexit, they might be in for a great surprise, because, much more than arteries and veins are at stake for Europe, including Britain, it is the heart that has to be nurtured and cared for.

What if for instance to Sofia Goggia the relation Italy-Britain is much more important than the relation Italy-EU-Britain?

I have no doubt those who voted for Brexit really wanted more out of Brussels than out of Europe... because that I can understand.

Sir, you don’t have to go underground and travel subways to know what people might want. Some well designed, not biased, public opinion research on the wished and not wished for outcomes of Brexit, in all countries involved, would be the minimum I would have required before any first Brexit meeting.

PS. Just in case you are curious, the worst for me of the Winter Olympics 2018, was having to suffer with Egvenia Medvedeva when not winning her gold.

@PerKurowski

So now Brussels wants to join forces with Facebook, Google and alike, in order to also extract value from our personal preferences.

Sir, Mehreen Khan, Alex Barker and Rochelle Toplensky report that “Brussels is thinking about a “levy, which is likely to be set at a rate of 3 per cent… raised against advertising revenues generated by digital companies such as Google…fees raised from users and subscribers to services such as Apple or Spotify, and income made from selling personal data to third parties… it will raise about €5bn a year.” “Brussels proposes levy on Big Tech digital revenues” March 16.

For years I have argued that we users should have right to charge something for our preferences disclosed on the web, not only because that could yield a partial funding of a Universal Basic Income scheme, but, even more importantly, because that would help to limit the bothering and the waste of our limited attention span.

But seemingly Brussels wants to hear nothing about that, they as self appointed redistribution profiteers, want in on that revenue stream.

It is just like if governments, instead of helping to rid ourselves of the fastidious robocalls selling us all kind of products and services, would now share the incentives to push those calls even more.

Sir, though I do not live in Britain, or in Europe for that sake, I was pretty sure I would not vote for a Brexit… but every day that passes, and I read about things like this, the less sure I am of that.

@PerKurowski

Help! Our so serious looking bank regulating technocrats are guided by childish romantic illusions. That’s dangerous.

Sir, Arthur Beesley and Alex Barker quotes Frans Timmermans, vice-president of the European Commission with: “Politics is always a balance between the head and the heart. In European politics we’ve sort of forgotten about the heart for too long, just thinking with the head. Then you end up in the underbelly, apparently, in some of our member states.” “Timmermans urges EU ‘not to punish Brits’”, February 3.

For EU politics that could be correct, though I really don’t know, and besides there are always more or less intelligent heads. But, in the case of regulations where only heads should be at work, there I am 100% sure, at least in the case of bank regulators, that only hearts reign.

That is because anyone who thinks that what is ex-ante perceived as risky, is ex post more dangerous than what is perceived as safe, is a naïve romantic full of illusions. The smart heads, like Voltaire did, would say “May God defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies”

Now for those who like EU have embraced the Basel Committee’s principles, this means for instance that a bank is allowed to hold less capital (equity) when financing the purchase of a house, than when lending to a SME or an entrepreneur.

That means a bank can leverage its equity more when financing the purchase of a house than when lending to a SME or an entrepreneur.

That de facto means a bank can earn a higher expected risk-adjusted return on equity when financing the purchase of a house, than when lending to a SME or an entrepreneur.

Consequentially that means banks will much prefer financing the “safe” basements in which kids without jobs can live with their parents, than the “risky” SMEs or entrepreneurs that could help the kids get the jobs they need to be able to afford buying a house and become parents too.

If that is not extraordinarily dangerous for the future of EU, what is? Sir why don’t you suggest Timmermans that if he has some 100% head-applying technocrats available, then he should urgently have them to take over current bank regulations. 

@PerKurowski

Mario Draghi, you should be ashamed, as a bank regulator, you helped to leave behind, those left behind

Sir, Claire Jones and Alex Barker write that Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, and Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund…issued separate pleas yesterday to address the plight of those “left behind” by globalization”, “Draghi makes appeal for those ‘left behind’” September 14.

The fact is though that Mario Draghi, the former chair of the Financial Stability Board, and the current Chair of Governors and Heads of Supervision of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, is fully supporting the pillar of current bank regulations, namely the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

That regulation has given a risk weight of 0% to the Sovereign, 20% to the AAArisktocracy, and 100% to We the People, like the SMEs and entrepreneurs.

John Kenneth Galbraith in his “Money: Whence it came where it went”, 1975, wrote: “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. And the more casual the conditions under which credit is granted and hence the more impecunious those accommodated, the more egalitarian credit is”.

And so, with their discrimination against “The Risky”, regulators, like Mario Draghi, decreed inequality. And so they have no right to try to bullshit us now with some deep-felt concerns with those left behind.

And to top it up, with his QEs, Draghi has mostly helped those who already had assets.

@PerKurowski ©

Jonathan Hill: In order to lower the capital requirements for banks, why must credits be securitized?

Sir, I refer to Jim Brunsden’s and Alex Barker’s “Why Hill is no markets union swashbuckler” September 30.

In it they write: “Europe’s companies remain overwhelmingly reliant on bank funding, which is problematic when lenders are scaling back risk-taking post-crisis. The remedy is promoting access to other sources, notably through selling shares and bonds. Here there is room for growth”.

Not exactly, banks are not “scaling back risk-taking post crisis” they are scaling back on capital requirements based on perceived risks... c'est pas la même chose.

They also write: “The remedy is promoting access to other sources, notably through selling shares and bonds” and Jonathan Hill in his “A stronger capital markets union for Europe” suggests: “To help free up banks’ balance sheets, making it easier for them to increase lending, I am proposing a new EU framework, with lower capital requirements, to encourage simple, transparent and standardized securitization”.

And I must ask Hill: Are not direct bank loans to “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs simple and transparent enough? Does not securitization increase the complexity and thereby reduce transparency? Does securitization mean the borrowers benefit from better terms or that securitizers obtain better profit margins?

Why does Hill not propose instead to lower the capital requirements for the banks when lending to those who, precisely because they are ex ante perceived as risky, have never caused a major bank crisis?

Could it be because Jonathan Hill believes that securitization magically makes all more secure, or is it that he does not want be blamed by colleagues for spilling the beans on the greatest regulatory absurdity of all times… the portfolio invariant credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

That absurdity on which FT having kept so much mum on, also must be praying fervently disappears unnoticed.

@PerKurowski

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier to parade down European avenues wearing a cone of shame.

Sir, I refer to Alex Barker’s and Phillip Stafford’s “Six ways Europe’s financial sector is meant to mend its ways” April 16.

I am not impressed. Because in Europe, the regulators still allows a bank to hold much less capital (equity) if it lends to “the infallible” meaning sovereigns, real estate or AAAristocracy, than when lending to the “risky” meaning medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups.

And so in Europe, regulators seem yet not have been able to understand this allows banks to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”.

And so in Europe, regulators still distort the allocation of credit to the real economy; that distortion that created the crisis, too much lending to Greece, real estate in Spain, AAA rated securities; that distortion that causes too little lending, in competitive terms, to those who could create the next generation of decent European jobs. 

And so, as I see it, Europe has not even started to mend its ways

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier and his Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board colleagues to parade down European avenues wearing dunce caps – meaning cones of shame.

When are they going to fine the bankers and not, suicidally, fine the banks?

Sir, right now, when the European banks are leveraged to the tilt and unable, because of faulty capital requirements and lack of capital, to finance those in the real economy most in need of bank credit, we read, reported by Alex Barker and Daniel Schäfer that “Brussels poised to announce hefty rate-fixing fines on global banks” December 4.

When are they going to fine the bankers and not the banks? Don´t they know that in these days of so little bank capital, derived from regulators requiring so little bank capital with Basel II, that every fine a bank pays, translates into less bank credit… primarily to those medium and small businesses entrepreneurs and start-ups we most need to have access to bank credit in competitive terms?

Has Robin Hood sold out and now been co-opted by King John as a neo-Sheriff of Nottingham?

Sir, Ralph Atkins and Alex Barker quote Simon Chouffot saying “You can draw parallels between the Sheriff of Nottingham and financial services, and Robin Hood redistributing gains back to those who needed it.”, “Robin Hood tax: A long shot”, May 21.

Sorry but I am utterly confused, I always saw the Sheriff of Nottingham as the tax collector for bad King John, and Robin Hood as providing good people a safe-haven in the Sherwood Forest.

Like Basel, EU also favors the AAAristocracy and the “infallible sovereigns” and mistreats “The Risky”

Sir, Alex Barker in “EU poised to unveil revamped banking rule book”, February 28, quotes Barney Reynolds saying “The differences with Basel are relatively small. The spirit is more or less there”. 

Indeed Michel Barnier, the European Commission and the European Parliament are, like the Basel Committee, intent on turning a blind eye to the fact that the current crisis was caused by those who perceived as "The Infallible” turned out to be Potemkin-infallible, and not by those correctly perceived as “The Risky” and will therefor keep on favoring the first and thereby mistreating the latter.

And so banks will be allowed to continue to leverage immensely more the risk-adjusted net margins paid by the AAAristocracy and the “infallible” sovereigns, than what they will be allowed to leverage that same risk adjusted margins when paid by anyone of “The Risky”, like medium and small businesses and entrepreneurs.

And that will of course mean “The Risky” will keep on having to pay higher interests and get smaller loans than what would have been the case without these bank regulations. And that will mean of course that the banks because of this distortion will be unable to efficiently allocate economic resources, leading to less economic growth and less jobs for our young.

Sir, are they discriminating and distorting because they really want or is it because they just do not know what they are doing? 

Anyway, damn these regulating baby-boomers with their dangerous risk aversion and their aprės nous le déluge credo!

Stop the foolish and immoral flogging of “The Risky” bank borrowers

Sir, Alex Barker and Caroline Binham report on how “Brussels turns up pressure over Libor-rigging scandal”, February 22, They write “a bank implicated in all three investigations could, for example, face fines of up to 30 percent of revenues”.

Has the European Commission no idea of whom, at the end of the day, somehow somewhere, is going to have to pay these fines?

Just for a starter, depending on whether the borrowers are perceived as risky or not, since paying the fine will result in less bank capital, the guilty bank will have to shrink its lending between 10 and 50 times the amount of the fine. And of course the issuing of fresh bank capital that is so needed will be more expensive as a result of these fine-risks. And of course the margins charged by the guilty bank on its lending business will have to increase.

And those who will suffer the most, are the bank borrowers who because they are perceived as “risky”, by order of the bank regulators, currently generate higher capital requirements for banks, like small and medium businesses and entrepreneurs.

Fines and other sentences should be applied directly to the bankers responsible for misbehaviors, but, if they insist on the fines being paid by the banks, the least they should do is to require these to be paid, for example, through the issuance and delivery of new bank shares for the amount of the fine at market prices.

Please, we must stop this foolish and immoral flogging of “The Risky” bank borrowers, as if it were not already hard enough on them to be perceived as “risky” having to pay higher risk-premiums, getting smaller loans and often having to accept other harsh terms. When the going gets tough, that is when we most need “The Risky” to get going.

And please, bank regulator, wake up to the reality that “The Risky” has never ever been the root of your problems, that dubious honor belongs exclusively to the “Potemkin Infallible”

Much more than a bank union, Europe needs completely new bank regulations

Sir, Alex Barker reports on Michel Barnier, the European commissioners current efforts to create a bank union in Europe, “Time to decide on bank union”, November 26 

If it is for banks to go on lending to “The Infallible”, private or sovereigns, and not to “The Risky” small businesses or entrepreneurs, then Europe does not need a banking union, since Europe will be stalling and falling anyhow. 

What Europe needs, much more than delaying Basel III, is throwing out completely those insane regulations of capital requirements, and now also of liquidity requirements, based on perceived risks. 

By the way does Michel Barnier think that a job in a triple-A rated company is worth much more for the society than a job in an unrated small business? From the regulations he supports it would seem so!

I would be scared too by Michel Barnier…and by Sir Mervin King.

Sir, Alex Barker in “Barnier vs the Brits” November 9, writes about the fears of Sir Mervin King in that Brussels reforms will reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals. Would that not be a case of plain vulgar under-the-table protectionism?

I do not know much about the competitive aspects of UK banks but, I would indeed be frightened if the banks of my country were to be even partially supervised by someone who when going to Washington D.C. presented in a brochure, as a success story of his office: “A French citizen complained about discriminatory entry fees for tourists to Romanian monasteries. The ticket price for non-Romanians was twice as high as that for Romanian citizens. As this policy was contrary to EU principles, the Romanian SOLVIT centre persuaded the church authorities to establish non-discriminatory entry fees for the monasteries. Solved within 9 weeks.” http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/problems-solved/discrimination/index_en.htm

And, if an owner of a small business or as an entrepreneur, classified as “risky” by the regulators, and in need or want of bank credit, I would also be scared witless by someone who even after the world has gotten itself into such enormous difficulties by the excessive bank exposures to what was ex-ante officially deemed as absolutely not-risky, during a conference in Washington, insisted on that his responsibility as a regulator is simply to avoid excessive risk-taking… but, come to think about it… so does also UK´s Sir Mervin King opine. Help!