Bank regulators need also to reinvigorate urgently their moral mojos.

Sir, I cannot but express amazement with the abundant and detailed coverage given to of UBS and The Libor Affair by the Financial Times, for instance on December 20, when compared to the so little information given out on what the Basel II bank regulations really was about, The Basel Affair.

For instance, just the simple publication of the tables of risk weights corresponding to “Claims on sovereigns, page 19 and “Claims on corporates”, page 23 and that appears in the June 2006 document that compiles Basel II, with an explanation of what that entailed in authorized leverages to banks when holding different assets, would have enlightened your readers of a problem a thousand-fold more significant than the absolutely illegal Libor incident.

In fact Jonathan Guthrie’s assertion that “Big banks must reinvigorate their moral mojos” should apply as much or even more to the regulators. Here we have public servants deciding, for no other reason than to satisfy their boudoir dreams of a world with no bank failures, that those perceived as risky must pay even higher interest rates to the banks than they would ordinarily have to pay, and those perceived as absolutely safe less, and that, besides being plain stupid, is also plain immoral.

And when Caroline Binham reports on how “Lowball [Libor] tenders aimed to paint a rosy pictures of health [of UBS]” this seems so innocent when compared to the so low capital ratios reported by the banks, because of the risk-weighting of assets, and which really confounded all, including all FT’s experts.

Mark to market the government’s bail-out efforts

Sir Jonathan Guthrie in reference to the bailout of General Motors writes that if he was a US taxpayer “I would tell Fritz that I wanted my $50bn back”, “An industry running on romance alone” July 23. And he is fully in his right to demand that… but only after he had paid his share of the tax of course.

Perhaps what the US should do is to turn around and give a 50% tax credit for anyone willing to pay 100% of face value for whatever the government has received from GM in return for that assistance and then let these papers trade to see what the market considers them to be worth.

Problem though is that government would never dare themselves to be marked to market that way.

What we need is some good carbon-solution neutral advice

Sir Jonathan Guthrie's "How I was deluded by my own carbon footprint", May 3, illustrates in a funny way the tragedy of what many of us have been saying for years, namely that to counter the serious climate change challenges, the marketing of medieval indulgences, for some fairly undefined carbon sins, in order to use the proceeds (after commissions) for some not that very clear good deeds, will just not cut it. The fact that the market seems mostly to be made up by a mix of innocent and well intentioned believers and state of the art speculators, and supervised all by an often much hypocritical environmental clergy does not make it easier. By the way it must be history's irony at work that has the current carbon indulgences system receiving its strongest support in protestant countries.

As for myself, having had some intentions to vacation in such a way that would leave a truly horrible carbon footprint, I am currently looking for someone to convince me that I am morally much better of if I allow them to finance me a more responsible alternative. Any offers? Seriously, if climate change is serious we should act seriously, and in order to do that what the world most needs is some good carbon-solution neutral advice.