JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, welcome to the club! Small businesses and entrepreneurs have been attacked for years!

Sir Tom Braithwaite reports that, because of proliferation of regulators and legal bills, “Dimon says banks ‘under assault’” January 15

Indeed, no question about it, Dimon is absolutely right, but, as I see it, he has to stand in line with his compliant; at least until all those perceived as “risky” have been able to voice theirs, because they have in fact been under attack for much longer.

In those old days when regulators were very chummy with banks, days of Basel II, banks were allowed to hold very little equity against assets perceived as absolutely safe. And that allowed banks to make risk-adjusted returns on equity, on “safe” exposures, we normal citizens could never even dream of. And, in doing so, the regulators de facto removed all incentives for banks to give credit to “risky” small businesses and entrepreneurs. I can almost hear Jamie Dimon asking his Board “Why should we give loans to a “risky” when doing so we can only leverage JPMorgan Chase’s equity 12 to 1, when giving loans to the AAArisktocracy we can leverage 60 times or even more?”

But, that said, the “risky” and the banks do have a mutual complaint they can raise with respect to the fines or the penalties for bank’s misdeeds. Because, were it not for these, banks could have more equity available that could be leveraged with loans to the risky.

Perhaps judges should listen to them and force all bank fines to be placed in special bank equity accounts, available exclusively to be leveraged lending to small businesses and entrepreneurs… and I am sure all unemployed would also support that motion.

Systemic distortion of bank credit allocation, is worse than risks with “global systemically important banks”

In November 1999 I concluded and Op-Ed with: “Currently market forces favors the larger the entity is, be it banks, law firms, auditing firms, brokers, etc. Perhaps one of the things that the authorities could do, in order to diversify risks, is to create a tax on size.”

And in May 2003, then as an Executive Director of the World Bank, addressing many regulators at a workshop, I argued: “Knowing that ‘the larger they are, the harder they fall’, if I were regulator, I would be thinking about a progressive tax on size.”

And so Sir, of course I agree with John Gapper in that “Regulators are right to cut the biggest banks down to size” January 8.

But that said, why is it that even though Gapper clearly understand the meaning (and cost) of higher capital requirements for banks, he seemingly cannot understand what different capital requirements for different bank borrowers mean.

The “risky”, because their borrowings generate higher capital requirements for banks than the “safe”, are being negated fair access to bank credit.

More important than increasing the capital requirements for those banks like JPMorgan that because of their size pose a “global” systemic risk, it is much more important to get rid of the risk–weighted capital requirements which constitute, not just a risk, but an existent systemic distortion that impedes the efficient allocation of bank credit.

And when are investors to sue Blackrock and Pimco because of these experts lack of due diligence?

Sir, I read Camilla Hall and Luc Cohen reporting “Six banks sued over trustee roles” June 19.

What­? If Pimco or Blackrock had had any of those executives really deserving huge bonuses they hold they have, they should have know that if regulators authorized banks to hold securities rated as AAA, against a so meager 1.6 percent in capital, meaning they could leverage their own capital 62.5 times to 1, something very bad was going to happen, and so they needed to be very alert.

And so in this respect I ask, when are the Pimco and the Blackrock investors going to sue Pimco and Blackrock for the lack of due diligence?

If expert companies can try to get out of their buyer’s beware responsibility, why should not the small investors try?

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?

FT, why do you go so much softer on regulators than on bankers?

JP Morgan Chase’s recent losses, Barclays’ manipulation of Libor, RBS’s IT failures and the money laundering assistance provided by HSBC, though all absolutely unpardonable, some most probably criminal, amount, in terms of real damages to the economy, to not more than some pick-pocketing, when compared to the harm that the bank regulations did, with their capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks already cleared for. 

All of which makes me wonder again, for the umpteenth time, why the Financial Times treats the bureaucrats of financial regulations with kid gloves when compared to how they treat the bad bad bankers, as for instance in Patrick Jenkins’ and Brooke Master’s “London’s precarious position” July 30, 2012.

The “risky” borrowers should also complain about discriminatory bank regulations

Sir, Shahien Nasiripour and Tracy Alloway report on the concerns of some large US banks with respect to some new capital rules because these “will hurt them relative to overseas competitors” “Fed set to announce capital proposals”, June 7. 

These banks are of course in the perfect right to object any sort of discrimination, but, when will the Financial Times dedicate one single analysis to the discrimination that many borrowers are subjected to, when their bank borrowings give cause for a higher capital requirement than the borrowing of others? 

Does FT really think that a loan to a small business or an entrepreneur, he who already has to pay a higher interest rate and can only access a smaller loan than those who have officially been declared as “not risky” is correct, and does not create distortions? 

If you only report the complaints of the big banks… you are assisting them in becoming too big. 

If FT had complained in time about the fact that a UK bank was required to have 8 percent in capital lending to the grocery down the corner but only 1.6 percent if lending to Greece then perhaps we would not be in the current mess. Who knows? 

The article also reminds us that Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, has decried the new Basel III rules as “anti American”, or un-American as it is usually expressed. But, again, that begs the question, if the American banks, according to Basel II and III, need to hold more capital when lending to American small businesses or entrepreneurs than when lending to foreign sovereigns or corporations deemed as not risky, is that not equally anti American?