FT, do you really mean it?

FT, do you really mean that if David Malpass becomes president of the World Bank the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) dominated by China will become a worthier development bank than WBG?

Sir, in “US makes a poor choice for World Bank chief” February 7, you lash out that if David Malpass becomes president of the World Bank, that will lead to a “dysfunctional organisation that will encourage its activity to shift to other development banks, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.” Really? Has this do to with David Malpass, or has this to do with someone else who is not to your liking?

In support of your doom you mention that Malpass’ “judgment even on economics, his supposed speciality, is wanting. Notoriously, as then chief economist at Bear Stearns, Mr Malpass was blithely confident about the strength of the US economy in 2007 — a year before the global financial crisis hit and his own employer went under” 

Sir, like many he had confidence in those AAA rated securities that SEC, which supervised investment banks in the US, allowed, based on recommendations of the Basel Committee, Bear Sterns to hold against only 1.6% in capital, to leverage over 62.5 times. I have not read much about you judging the regulators’ specialty wanting.

As for the World Bank you argue that its role is “providing global public goods such as managing scarce water supplies, combating pandemics and coping with the effects of climate change.”

No, its role is not to substitute for governments? The World Bank is a development bank, which means, at least in my book, its role is to help and assist financing countries to develop their own capacities to manage scarce water supplies, combate pandemics and cope with the effects of climate change.

Sir, you know I have a concern about the World Bank, namely that it does not object to the current risk weighted capital requirements for banks. I hold that it should, because risk taking is the oxygen of any development.

Who knows, perhaps someone who has seen first hand what happens if you trust what’s “safe” too much to be safe, might be exactly what the World Bank needs.

@PerKurowski

To really understand the 2007-08 crisis, it is the ex ante perceived risks that should be used, and not the ex post understood risks

Sir, Martin Sandbu, when reviewing Ashoka Mody’s “EuroTragedy: A drama in nine acts" writes: “Mody nails the biggest policy error of them all: the insistence that euro member states could not default on their own debt, or allow their banks to default on senior bondholders.” “A crisis made worse by poor policy choices” August 6.

That refers indeed to a great ex-post crisis policy error, but not to the biggest error of all, that which caused the crisis, namely the ex ante policy of the regulators, for the purpose of their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, assigning all EU sovereigns, Greece included, a 0% risk weight.

Mody (on page 168) includes the following: “If, for example, €100 of bank assets generate a return of €1, then a bank with €10 of equity earns a 10 percent return for its equity investors, but a bank with only €5 of equity earns a 20 percent return.” Though not entirely exact (because it might be slightly more difficult to generate that €1 with less capital) it shows clearly Mody understand the effect on returns on equity of different leverages.

But what Mody, and I would say at least 99.9% of the Euro crisis commentators do not get, or do not want to see, or do not dare to name, is that allowing banks different leverages for different assets, based on different perceived, decreed (or sometimes concocted) risks, distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. In the case of the Euro, the two shining examples are: the huge exposures to securities backed with mortgages to the US subprime sector that, because they got an AAA to AA rating, could be leveraged 62.5 times; and the exposures to sovereigns, like Greece.

Sir, let us be clear, there is no doubt whatsoever that, had for instance German and French banks have to hold as much capital/equity against Greece that they had to hold against loans to German and French entrepreneurs, then they would never ever have lent Greece remotely as much.

The other mistake that Mody in his otherwise excellent book makes, and which is one that at least 99% of the crisis commentators also make, is that they fall into the Monday-morning-quarterback trap of considering ex post realized risks, as being the ex ante perceivable risks. Mody refers in the book to that George Orwell might have written about narrating history “not as it happened, but as it ought to have happened” In this case the risk referred to, are not the risks that were seen but the risks, we now know, that should have been seen.

Sir, Ashoka Mody’ EuroTragedy has so much going for it that it merits to be rewritten. Just reflect on what it means for the Greek citizens having to pay the largest share of sacrifices, for a mistake committed by European technocrats.

PS. Mody goes into the details of the demise of “the smallest of Wall Street’s five top tier investment banks” Bear Stearns. It “was an accident waiting to happen… it had borrowed $35 for every dollar of capital it held”. Had Mody added the fact that Bear Stearns had been duly authorized by the SEC to leverage this much and even more, the recounting of the events would have been different.

@PerKurowski

Jacob Frenkel has his, and I have my own cross examination dream

Sir, Jacob Frenkel, a lawyer, dreams of “cross examining all the senior government officials… who begged JPMorgan to save the US and take over Bear Sterns and WaMu” with a “the government is asking you to find liable and impose massive fines on this institution, which tried to help, not hurt, the American economy”, “The madness of the $13bn JPMorgan settlement”, November 1.

I, as a grandfather, would dream instead of cross examining all the bank regulators asking them “Why do you require banks to hold more capital against loans to those perceived as “risky” than against those perceived as infallible, even though the first are already being charged higher risk premiums, get smaller loans, in harsher terms, and have never ever caused a major bank crisis?”

Don’t you know that those we most have to thanks for having some “absolutely safe” today are the “risky” of yesterday? Don’t you know that those who best stand a chance of helping my grandchild to find a decent and sturdy job tomorrow might very well be those “risky” most in need of access to bank credit in competitive terms, like the medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups?

Don't you know that is against the Equal Credit Opportunity Act - Regulation B?

Sometimes formal limits signify fewer limits

Sir Krishna Guha in “Call for investment bank rules to change” April 18 mentions that Bear Sterns had a debt to equity ratio of about 30 times and that "experts argue that the investment banks should be subject to the same capital requirements as commercial banks - requirements that in effect limit their leverage. Not necessarily so!

If investments banks invested in those super senior debt that carried the triple A-tag and that are described by Gillian Tett in “Super-senior losses just a misplaced bet on carry trade” then according to the minimum capital requirements that apply to the commercial banks these could in fact have an even higher leverage…in some circumstances even more than 60 times.