Does BoE’s core mission not include assuring bank credit is allocated as efficiently as possible to the real economy?

Sir, I refer to the letter written by Andrew Bailey and Sir Jon Cunliffe of the Bank of England titled “Proposals designed to fulfill BoE’s core mission”.

“They write “BoE’s proposals about the appropriate capital requirements for the UK’s banks are the product of two years of careful reflection and stress-testing, and are designed to fulfil our core mission of making the banking system safe and sound.”

But then we read about equity requirements expressed as percentages of “risk-weighted assets” and I must again ask the following:

Is not also part of the core mission of BoE assuring that bank credit is allocated as efficiently as possible to the real economy? I ask this because risk weighted capital requirements, by allowing banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity on assets ex ante perceived as safe than on risky assets, distorts horrendously the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

And by the way, by distorting that credit allocation they will make the real economy unsound and thereby, sooner or later, also threaten the safety of the banking system.

And by the way, just as an aide memoire, I remind them of that no major bank crisis ever result from what is ex ante perceived as risky, these are always the consequences of excessive exposure to something that ex ante was perceived as safe but that ex post turned out to be risky.

@PerKurowski ©

Andrew Bailey, and what about the highly irresponsible conduct of bank regulators?

Sir, I refer to Andrew Bailey’s “Irresponsible conduct carries consequence in British finance” February 23. I agree with all but, what about the regulators?

Bank regulators decided that lending to those perceived as risky, from a credit risk point of view, required banks to hold much more equity than lending to those perceived as safe. That was an extremely irresponsible thing to do.

Not only did it mean that lending to the safe then generated much higher risk adjusted returns on bank equity than lending to the risky; something which completely distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy; but it also meant that banks would be standing there naked, with little equity, precisely where all major bank crises have always occurred, namely the terrain of excessive exposures to what ex ante was perceived as “absolutely safe” but that ex post can shows its other real colors.

Do I want to jail these regulators? No! We are living in different times. But I surely do not want to see these failed regulators also hide behind “an accountability firewall”, which permits them to keep on regulating… and sometimes even being promoted.

Let them just parade down our avenues wearing cones of shame.

FSA, you’re on to something good. I hope all your European and American colleagues now follow suit.

Sir Brooke Masters and Patrick Jenkins report “UK banking watchdog eases reins on capital ratios” October 10, and refers to something I have been actively promoting for quite some time, namely the absolute need to get bank credit flowing again to those, who perceived as risky, have been locked out from it by the current capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk, like to small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Simon Gleeson, refers to the possibility of creating “a perverse incentive [for banks] to load up with the highest-risk corporate loans you can find, while completely ignoring that the real perverse incentives that have been in place, and which helped to cause the crisis, are those which favored banks to load up so excessively on assets officially perceived as absolutely safe. 

No, this is indeed a much welcomed development, about time, and I sure hope that other regulators now follow suit. 

Master and Jenkins qualify this though as “Banking regulators are gambling”. If they refer to regulators gambling on that bankers, if not molested by regulators, will be more able to efficiently allocate the resources in the economy than what government or regulation bureaucrats can, then that to me sounds like a very safe bet. 

Master and Jenkins also warn “if it goes bad, and a deeper recession follows, banks will have less equity to absorb the inevitable losses” Oh so scary! If a deeper recession follows then more of those absolute safe assets on the balance sheet of bank will go awry, and, in that case, I guarantee them that the lack of bank equity will be among the of their worries.