Dodd-Frank rollback on mortgages heralds even higher house prices and even less financing of job creation.

Sir, I refer to Barney Jopson’s and Ben McLannahan’s “Dodd-Frank rollback heralds mortgage push” May 17.

Because of the risk weighted capital requirements bank credit is geared to finance what is perceived or decreed as presently safe, like houses and the government, and to stay away from financing the “riskier” future, like entrepreneurs.

Of course I am glad for “a bill aimed at giving small banks relief from post-crisis reforms that had driven them out of parts of the market” so to give these some “more opportunity [to] offer mortgages to folks we know”

I just wish the roll back had meant the risk-weighted capital, so to incentivize small and big banks to give more credit opportunities to entrepreneurs, in order to give “folks we know” more chances of finding the jobs that will help them to service their mortgages and utilities.

PS. One very needed research is on how much of current house prices are the result of regulatory or other subsidies to the financing of mortgages. When now buying a house, how much might we currently have to finance because of the financing of all other purchased houses? 

@PerKurowski

Congresswoman Maxine Waters… stop rooting for bank regulations that puts inequality on steroids.

Sir, I refer to Ben McLannahan’s and Barney Jopson’s “Republican puts forward alternative to ‘nightmare’ Dodd-Frank” April 27.

Jeb Hensarling, the chairman of the House financial services committee’s Choice Act includes a provision of requiring banks to hold “at least 10 per cent of gross assets, if they want relief from some of the toughest standards on supervision and regulation”

“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the committee, told the hearing that the proposals — known as the Financial Choice Act, which stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs — would unleash more “risky and predatory” practices on Wall Street.”

Holding 10 percent, against all assets, would eliminate that odious discrimination against the access to the opportunities of bank credit of "the risky", which result from the current risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

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… Bad banks, unlike good, loaned to the poor risk, which is another name for the poor man.”

Allowing banks to hold less capital against what is perceived as safe than against what is perceived as risky; allows banks to leverage more with what is perceived as safe than with what is perceived as risky; which allows banks to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to what is perceived as safe than when lending to what is perceived as risky; which means banks will lend more than usual to what is perceived as safe, at even lower rates, which could be very dangerous; and less than usual to what is perceived as risky, unless its done at much higher rates than usual… which unfortunately makes the risky even riskier.

So, as I see it this proposal by Chairman Hensarling should not be applied only to those who want “relief from some of the toughest standards on supervision and regulation” but to all banks.

Of course, I pray that 10% capital requirement applies also to loans to the public sector. As is, lower capital requirements for banks when holding the sovereign’s debts than those of the citizens, de facto implies a belief that government bureaucrats know how to use bank credit better than citizens… and that is of course pure statism, totally false and absolutely unsustainable.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2016/03/decreed-inequality.html

@PerKurowski

Elizabeth Warren, as a member of United States Senate Committee on Banking, might not perform entirely her own duties

Sir, Barney Jopson reports that Senator Elizabeth Warren is requesting the replacement of Mary Jo White as Chair of the Security and Exchange Commission “Warren wants SEC head fired for ‘undermining’ administration” October 15.

I have no opinion on how Mary Jo White has been performing her duties at the SEC but, the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, of which Ms Warren is a standing member, is lacking carrying out in its own responsibilities.

I hold that since to this date I have not seen any effort on part of that committee to ascertain if, and if so how much, the risk weighted capital requirements distort the allocation of bank credit.

This is not a minor issue. For a starter it could ask bank regulators for a full explanation of the risk weights of 0% when financing the sovereign (the King), 20% the AAArisktocracy, 35% housing and 100% “We the People” like SMEs and entrepreneurs, those with the best chances of generating the future jobs our grandchildren need. That regulatory credit risk aversion, layered on top of whatever risk aversion the bankers’ themselves can harbor, sounds as anathema as can be to the whole notion of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Besides, the discrimination in access to bank credit that those risk weights produce, violates directly the spirit of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B). In that respect the committee should also ask the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, what it is doing about this.

With regulations, to favor banks lending to the “safer” past and present, over lending to the “riskier” future, is a clear violation of that holy social inter-generational bond that Edmund Burke spoke about.

To top it up, those risk weighted capital requirements do not serve one iota for making the banking system safer. All major bank crises result either from unexpected events or from excessive exposures to something erroneously perceived as safe, never ever because of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as risky.

PS. Elizabeth Warren, in as much as she classifies herself as a progressive, could also be interested in how these regulations decree inequality.

@PerKurowski ©

US, when will senators, like Elizabeth Warren, grill bank regulators with the same gusto they grill ban​k​sters?

Sir, I refer to Barney Jopson and Alistair Grays report on how John Stumpf was grilled in the Congress Wells Fargo clear misbehavior “Wells chief savaged in Congress over fake accounts” September 21.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren told Mr Stumpf: “Your definition of accountable is to push the blame to your low-level employees who don’t have the money for a fancy PR firm to defend themselves. It’s gutless leadership. The only way that Wall Street will change is if executives face jail time when they preside over massive frauds.”

Is senator Warren wrong? Absolutely not, but the grilling, if it does not also include a serious grilling of the bank regulators, is just another pushing all the blame on banks, in order to score cheap populist victories attacking “banksters”.

Here follows just few of the questions the US Senate's Banking Commission should pose regulators.

With your risk weighted capital requirements you allow banks to leverage more their equity, and the support we the society give them, with what is perceived as safe than with what is perceived as risky.

Do you not understand that favoring in this way The Sovereign, The Safe, The Past, The Rich, The Houses and The AAArisktocracy, impedes the fair access to bank credit of We the People, The Risky, The Future, The Poor, The Jobs and The Unrated? Who gave you the right to distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy this way? Don't you understand with that you have de facto decreed inequality?

In all your regulations where have you defined the purpose of our banks? Does not John A Shedd saying: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for” also apply to banks? Or is it really that you felt you did not need to do that in order to regulate banks?

Finally, for this first round of questions: Where did you get that funny idea behind all this that what is ex ante perceived as risky, is riskier to the banking system than what is perceived as safe, and that is therefore much likely to cause dangerous excessive bank exposures? Have you never heard of Voltaire’s “May God defend me from my friends [AAA rated]: I can defend myself from my enemies [BB- rated]”?

Don’t you see how these regulations helped to cause the crisis? Don’t you see how making it harder than usual for SMEs and entrepreneurs to access bank credit dooms us to stagnation?

By the way, before you go, where do you think we would we be if the credit rating agencies had, so luckily, not fouled up so fast?

@PerKurowski ©

Stop bank regulators from distorting bank credit allocation to the real economy, based on their anxiety de jour.

Sir, Barney Jopson and Gregory Meyer report, “The Fed wants to use capital charges to discourage banks from risky activities involving hazardous materials that could threaten their survival in the event of a catastrophe… like costly disasters such as tanker spills or gas pipeline explosions.” “Banks face capital call for commodity disaster costs”, November 4.

With their credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks regulators already discourage banks from lending to those perceived as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, now they also want to discourage lending to what could produce a gas spill or a gas explosion. Where will all this risk aversion end?

When will they realize that something perceived risky like handling hazardous materials is by definition much less risky to the banking system than something that has an AAA credit rating?

Banks should of course hold capital against unexpected losses but regulators should of course also have the intellectual capacity to understand that the really dangerous unexpected, has much greater potential to appear among what is perceived as safe, than among what is perceived as risky.

Please let us have an 8 to 10 percent capital requirement on all bank assets based on that regulators simply do not know what they do, instead of having them to distort the allocation of bank credit based on their anxiety de jour.

@PerKurowski ©

Why are regulators only concerned with banks not dying and not with banks living well?

Sir, Barney Jopson writes about Barney Frank discussing the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the future of regulation. “Architect of banking reforms says walls will not make the system safer”.

Frank, with respect of having joined the board of Signature Bank, and the resulting references to “the ‘revolving door’ between public office and the private sector” says:

“I reject this snarky premise that . . . I have somehow betrayed my principles by facilitating the operation of a bank that does what banks are supposed to do, which is financial intermediation”

Why is it only now Frank Dodd mentions: “what banks are supposed to do, which is financial intermediation”… in the Dodd-Frank Act there is not a word about that.

The stated purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act is: “To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes”

Had that Act started out by making clear that the number one priority of a bank is to allocate bank credit efficiently to the real economy, and that this is best achieved by minimizing regulatory distortions, we would most certainly have a much better Dodd-Frank Act.

By the way, “Elizabeth Warren and her band of progressive Democrats” have shown no interest in that either. The fact that banks need to hold much more capital when lending to American unrated SMEs and entrepreneurs, than for instance when lending to some AAA rated sovereigns, has been of no concern to them… or to most other involved with regulations.

What would the Founding Fathers say about these regulations with risk weights: 0% Federal Government and 100% We the People

@PerKurowski

Before managing other systemic risks, bank regulators should dare confront their own large systemic distortions.

Sir, David Oakley and Barney Jopson report that the Financial Stability Board, wants to go after big asset managers, “Asset managers’ bonds push prompts scrutiny” June 3.

Its reason is the following: “Since the financial crisis, the amount of bonds asset managers have on their books has grown dramatically, filling a void created by big dealer banks that have cut their exposure to fixed income. This shift has triggered worries among regulators about what will happen if a rise in US interest rates sparks a rush for the exit in bond markets — and that prospect has fuelled debate on tougher regulation.

Since a loss is a loss, no matter who has to bear it, huge asset managers, no matter what they say, can produce systemic economic shockwaves, and so of course everyone should be concerned with their risks.

But that said the first thing bank regulators need to do, is to understand how their own regulations have impacted the whole financial sector… in many shapes or forms.

I dare them to organize a seminar on: “What distortions do the portfolio invariant credit-risk-only-weighted capital (equity) requirements for banks cause?”

@PerKurowski

William Coen. Do you really think that government bureaucrats use bank credit more productively that SMEs and entrepreneurs?

Sir, I refer to Laura Noonan, Caroline Binham and Barney Jopson reporting that “Basel group faces up to compliance challenge” May 26.

We read David Green stating that still to be answered “is whether the new regulations actually does what it was intended to do and whether the side effects are acceptable, whether they are intended or not”. And that is something that does not sound quite unimportant eh?

But then William Coen, head of the Basel Committee’s secretariat, tells us “We hear quite often about unintended consequences of our reform when, in fact, the effects of our reforms are actually fully intended; some just don’t like them”.

But here then is a question to Mr. Coen.

The Basel Committee uses credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks were the weight of governments is 0% while the weight of SMEs and entrepreneurs is 100%... and that is something quite discussable, especially in these days when governments announce they need to use financial repression in order to impose informal haircuts on their obligations.

But worse, much worse, looked at from the opposite side, it tells us that the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision feels that the risk of bank credit not being used productively is 0% for government bureaucrats, and 100% for SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Is that really what you believe and have intended to say Mr Coen? Are you a communist?

@PerKurowski

Senator Richard Shelby. Ask Fed and FDIC, why Alabama’s borrowers are denied a fair access to bank credit.

Sir, I refer to Barney Jopson and Caroline Brinham’s “Republican resist global insurance role”, April 29.

Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate banking committee is quoted with: “An international regulatory regime should not dictate how US regulators supervise American or US based companies”.

It is a quite relevant opinion, but Senator Shelby should start by asking the Fed and the FDIC the following:

Why on earth are Alabama’s state-chartered banks allowed to lend to well-rated corporations elsewhere, or to sovereign governments, holding less equity than when lending to their own local SMEs and entrepreneurs?

Does that not enable sovereign governments and members of the AAArisktocracy to generate higher risk adjusted returns on bank equity than what Alabama’s borrowers can do?

Does that not mean that Alabama’s borrowers are refused fair access to the credits of their Alabama banks?

Senator Richard Shelby faces a hugely important challenge. But he should know that challenge extends way beyond the insurance sector and the Financial Stability Board. He should start with banking, and with the Basel Committee, that committee that so much influences US bank regulations, but that is not even mentioned once in the over 800 pages of the Dodd-Frank Act.

@PerKurowski

The Federal Reserve failed by submitting banks to an incomplete stress test.

Sir I refer to Tom Braithwaite, Ben McLannahan and Barney Jopson’s report on the recent stress tests performed by the Federal Reserve ad that that have given the US banks a clean bill of health, “European banks fail US stress tests”, March 12.

It is the Federal Reserve who has really failed the test by only testing for the assets banks have on their balance sheet, and not for the assets that should have been there. In other words, one thing is for banks to have sufficient equity for what they are doing, and another quite different sufficient equity for what they should be doing, if complying with their societal purpose of efficient credit allocation.

Banks have been made dysfunctional by the introduction of distorting credit-risk weighted equity requirements which favors assets perceived as “safe” As a result of this, banks in America (and in Europe) are not giving “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs a fair and sufficient access to bank credit. For the banks to become functional again all differences in equity requirements against assets need to be eliminated. And to make room for such a leveling, basically all banks must increase their equity.

Our young, in order to have jobs and a decent future, need banks to take risks on “risky” small businesses and entrepreneurs. How many of these borrowers will now not be able to get credit, only because of the dividends and the buy-backs of shares the Federal Reserve’s incomplete stress tests stimulate?

@PerKurowski

Can accounting really be allowed to base itself on known fictions?

Sir it is with amazement I read Barney Jopson, Benedict Mander and Miles Johnson reporting on how “Venezuela devaluation dents big companies”, February 12.

I understand the locals are prohibited from even thinking in terms of a different foreign exchange rate than what the current oilygarchs in power allows them to, though even so, most of them do, at least in the shadows.

But that grown-up foreign companies hang on to a rate that drives only a part of the economy, and have not created reserves to cover for this and other adjustments of the fx fiction to come, is astonishing. It sort of falls in the same category of naiveté as bank regulators believing that an AAA to AA rating has so little implicit risk so that they can allow banks to leverage over 60 times to 1 on such exposures.

Honestly, something is terribly wrong if auditors can ok balance sheets based on a known Bs. fiction.

One little raffle would do it

Sir, Barney Jopson in “Unknown auditor? Not in my back yard, thank you” describes how though everyone knows it is not good for the markets to be so much in the hand of just four big auditing firms no one really gets around to do something about it, and so it seems that your regulator could be lacking some testosterones. Honestly, how difficult can it be to pick, through a raffle, 150 of the 300 largest companies that should be able to use a mid-tier auditor, and just ordering them to do so within a year if the want to avoid a huge fine. It is high time for the world to start thinking about taxing the largest before they become the-only-one and so from auditor firms we might then have to move to the banks.