Does not the price increases suffered by the Gatsby count as inflation too?

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau refers, as so often is done these days, to the problem of low inflation, and which has even caused “Germany´s conservative central bank to call for wages to rise faster than in the past”, “A desperate Bundesbank has abandoned principle” August 4.

But the fact that there is no inflation recorded could also be a result of how we measure it. For instance, if our inflation basket included assets Plutocrats buy, like stocks, prime property, paintings, collectibles and other fancy stuff, we would certainly observe a quite high inflation… something that by the way should be expected considering how money, assisted by quantitative easing and fiscal deficits, has primarily flooded their pockets.

And really, talking about money which has lost purchasing power… what about all those savings that now buy so much less because of the low interest rates?

And so of course there is inflation… but perhaps not where some would like it to be… though I must confess that, inflation for the plutocrats and no inflation for the poorer, does indeed sound like a Piketty designed plan to combat inequality… could it be a targeted financial repression?

No!, as I have mentioned so many times before, much more important is it for Münchau, and for the Bundesbank, to take some time out to reflect on how the European economies are becoming weaker and weaker, as a result of the risk taking austerity imposed by the Basel Committee´s risk-weighted capital requirements for banks.

The question is not whether SMEs are risky but whether risky SMEs pose a threat to banks. They don´t!

Sir, Patrick Jenkins, on the issue of the SME not getting sufficient access to bank credit writes: “Compounding is the reality of global capital regulations which makes it far more costly to lend to smaller businesses. Bankers say a typical SME loan may absorb $5 of capital for every $100 of loan, compared with about $1.50 for an average mortgage”, “Policy makers need to refresh their approach to SMEs” November 26.

What “realities of global capital regulations” is he talking about? Those are not God given realities, those are regulations made by human fallible regulators and, if these had been forcefully questioned, among other by your journalists, these could have been changed years ago.

After so many letters over so many years I have written to you, and Jenkins, how come it is only now that Your Banking Editor acknowledges that “Global regulators should look again at the system of risk weighting ascribed to SME lending”? And why did it take a “Bundesbank research paper…convinced that SME default data are not as bad as everyone thinks” for him to do that?

And besides, that is not even important. The real question to be answered by bank regulators is not whether the SMEs are risky or not, but whether the SMEs ever pose a threat to banks? The answer to that is of course they do not, precisely because SMEs are perceived as risky.

At long last, the truth about the incestuous relation between banks and sovereigns, is coming out of the closet

Sir, at last someone in the highest spheres, Jens Weidmann, the president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, speaks out. In “Stop encouraging banks to load up on state debt” October 1, he dares to admit that the banks’ “Sovereign exposures are privileged by low or zero capital requirements”

What Weidmann now denounces is that viciously incestuous relation I have denounced for more than a decade and which can be described in terms of: “I government allow you banker to lend to me without capital, and I in my turn will guarantee your obligations to the market” 

And as Weidman daringly admits: “This undermines market discipline for governments and reduces their incentive to carry out the necessary reforms” and “banks, which can obtain unlimited cash against sovereign collateral from the central banks, are protected from discipline from investors who provide the funding.”

In this respect let me remind you of my letter to you, published on November 18, 2004, and which said:

“Our bank supervisors in Basel are unwittingly controlling the capital flows in the world. How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector (sovereigns)? In some developing countries, access to credit for the private sector is all but gone, and the banks are up to the hilt in public credits. Please, help us get some diversity of thinking to Basel urgently; at the moment it is just a mutual admiration club of firefighters”

As an Executive Director at the World Bank 2002-04, I also protested loudly against privileging the sovereign, but to no avail.

Over many years I have not seen anyone in the Financial Times even mentioning the issue of how privileging so much the sovereign, and others like the AAAristocracy, completely distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. I must say that speaks quite badly about your journalists, unless of course you want to excuse them by having to push a political agenda.

So will some of them now, again, bash Jens Weidman’s rational arguments for being excessively austere?

Of course, Mr. Weidman seems to just recently be waking up to the problem, and is not yet totally clear about it. For instance when he states “No market participant would judge a French bond to be as risky as the Greek one: the riskiness of each is reflected in their prices” he is probably not aware that he is with that really explaining why the whole idea of setting capital requirements for banks, based on an ex ante perceived risks, as Basel regulations does, is so utterly dumb, and only dooms banks to overdose on perceived risk.

PS. Here is how the EU made Greece pay for EU's insane mistake of assigning Greece a 0% risk weight.

PS. Here is my letter to the Financial Stability Board (FSB) that was officially received. Will it be answered?

There might be many reasons for wanting to feminize banks but, if it is to reduce risk-taking, then down we go!

Sir I refer to Ralph Atkins “If banks really want to be safe they should hire historians”, April 3.

Absolutely! Those historians would be able to inform you that historically the real dangers for banks have always lurked among what is perceived by the bankers to be absolutely safe, and never ever among what they perceive as risky.

Those historians might also add that one of the most important components for the nations and for their economies to develop, and move forward, is the willingness and the capacity of taking smart risks, which is the reason of course why in some churches we can hear psalms praying “God make us daring!”

Those historians might also add that there is no better way of keeping banks safe, than a sturdy and growing economy.

There might be many reasons why you would like to feminize your banks, like some of those referred to by Susan Menke in “The feminization of banking, why we need a kinder gentle banking” July 2011.

But if you want to do it in order to reduce risk-taking like the research of the Bundesbank that Atkins refers to, then you just have just had it from the very start.

In fact, even though perceived risks of bank assets are already cleared for by means of interest rate, amount of exposure and other contractual terms, bank regulators, primarily with Basel II, and following it up with Basel III, decided that those same perceptions of risk should also be reflected in the capital requirements of banks… more-risk-more-capital less-risk-less-capital.

And with that they allowed the banks to earn much higher risk adjusted expected returns on their equity on exposures to “The Infallible” than on exposures to “The Risky”.

And that, which completely ignores that smart daring risk-taking is the oxygen of any growing and sturdy economy, effectively castrated the banks and made them sing in falsetto… and down we go!

To me, Mario Draghi is one of the regulatory devils in the eurozone drama.

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau believes Jens Weidmann’s fears of that Draghi and ECB, with an increase in the monetary supply, and the purchase of government debt, will medium term doom Europe to a great inflation, are unwarranted; or, the risks of that happening, given the crisis, are acceptable. And that is why he holds that “Draghi is the devil in Weidmann’s eurozone drama” September 24. 

I reiterate my opinion that stimulating the economy with any sort of injection, before making substantial structural changes to the economy, so as to give ground for credible hope that these injections will be productive, is an irresponsible waste of scarce fiscal and monetary policy space. And, those changes have simply not happened. 

Bank regulators, among them Mr. Mario Draghi, wanted the banks to avoid lending to the “risky” so much, that they ended up leveraging the banks very dangerously to the “not-risky”. And, pitifully, the regulators have still not understood what they did wrong. 

Any injections without a reversal of the capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk which discriminate against the” risky”, will only mean that the economy gets to be flabbier and flabbier. This is so because so many of the economy’s productive growth possibilities are to be found exclusively in the hands of the “risky”, like the small businesses and entrepreneurs. 

And so, even though I do not know all of Mr. Weidmann’s arguments and thinking, Mr. Münchau should by now know that, at least to me, Mr. Draghi is indeed one of the bank regulatory devils in the eurozone drama. And that I know without the need of reading Faust.

Europe needs to eliminate the subsidy of the “risky” to the “safe”.

Sir, Martin Wolf gives a good but incomplete analysis in “Look beyond summits forsalvation” June 27. 

Like all others intellectual prisoners of the bank regulatory pillar of capital requirements based on ex ante perceived risk, he fails to understand how all the banks are currently condemned to end up gasping for air, and capital, on the last officially deemed safe-havens in town, Bundesbank and US Treasury, more sooner than later. 

As a result he also fails to understand the artificially imposed regulatory subsidies that the “risky” European countries pay to the “safe”, by means of the much lower interest rates the latter must pay when compared to what would have been the case absent these regulations.

Although with cancer, Europe still smokes… a lot!

Sir, Jens Weidmann, the president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, in “Monetary policy is no panacea for Europe´s ill”, May 8, writes that “Macroeconomic imbalances and unsustainable public and private debt in some member states lie at the heart of the sovereign crisis”. 

Indeed that is the cancer but, the smoking that caused it, was the silly discrimination through the capital requirements for banks in favor of what was officially perceived as not risky and against what was perceived as risky. Like for instance the 62 to 1 leverage a German bank was allowed to have when lending to Greece, compared to the only 12 to 1 leverage allowed when lending to a German entrepreneur. 

And so I feel there is need to remind Mr. Weidmann of the sad fact that Europe still smokes… a lot!