John Reed, competing on equal terms with equal capital requirements, traditional and investment bankers can be friends

Sir, John Reed writes that combining traditional banking and investment banking into a universal banking is inherently unstable and an unworkable model “Our universal banking mistake”, November 12. 

Reed argues: “Mixing incompatible cultures… make the entire finance industry more fragile…Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward. In addition, investment banking organisations tend to organise and focus on products rather than customers. This creates fundamental differences in values.”

Reed might have a point, but, in my opinion, the main reason for the system being fragile is because regulators treat the different activities differently. With the credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks, some are allowed to leverage their activities much more on equity than others. That introduces distortions that are impossible to clear for.

Apply one single capital requirement for all assets, for instance 8 percent, and the leveling of the internal playing field would strengthen the system and help to drive out many of those cultural differences. 

PS. Could farmers and the cowboys be friends, if treated so differently?

@PerKurowski ©

Other financial reforms are much more needed than rebuilding of Glass-Steagall styled walls.

Sir “Obama’s bank plan is a start” by Viral Acharya and Matthew Richardson, January 22 though describing in much detail the “highly geared bet on credit, especially tied to securitised pools of residential non-prime mortgages” misses out so completely on putting forward the two main causes for the disaster that one almost become suspicious about the intentions.

First, the explosion of the “securitised pools of residential non-prime mortgages” happened because those securities achieved AAA ratings and what can be better than to sell long term high interest mortgages as AAA safe investments. A 30 year 11 percent mortgage of US$ 300.000 if sold to yield 6 percent is valued at US$ 510.000 providing a US$ 210.000 immediate profit.

Second, for the banks to hold these AAA rated securities on their books they had, courtesy of the regulators to put up only 1.6 percent in equity, compared with the 8 percent of equity required when lending to small businesses, entrepreneurs or ordinary citizens. No wonder that “When the market and liquidity risk materialised as a result of the collapse of housing prices, they had no capital cushion to bear it”

And what have those causes for the disaster have to do with “the lack of Glass-Steagall-style restrictions”? Almost nothing!

And now I can’t find the link to this article in FT!!!???

Here's another reference to that article, two days later.