Capital requirements for banks that favor the financing of the safer present like houses and sovereigns, over the riskier future like entrepreneurs doom the world to secular stagnation.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “the financial mechanisms used to manage secular stagnation exacerbate it. We need more policy instruments. The obvious one is fiscal policy. If private demand is structurally weak, the government needs to fill the gap. Fortunately, low interest rates make deficits more sustainable.” “Monetary policy has run its course” March 13.

No! Secular stagnation is guaranteed by capital requirements for banks that favor the financing of the safer present like houses and sovereigns, over the riskier future like entrepreneurs. The subsidies implicit in having assigned a 0% risk weight to public debt translate into artificial low market rates. Weigh the sovereigns equal to citizens, at 100% and you will immediately see those rates shoot up.

Of course kicking the can further down with more fiscal spending based on more public debt will give our economies a breather, but for what purpose? Had central bankers and regulators accepted in that loony 62.5 times allowed bank leverages for anything rated as AAA, and insane 0% risk weight assigned to Greece that caused the crises; and gotten rid of their risk weighting based on ex ante perceptions and not on ex post possibilities, our economies would be in a much better shape. But no, their huge liquidity injections seem to have mostly been put in place in order to cover up for their mistakes. And statist journalists backed them up by solely blaming banks, credit rating agencies and markets. 

Déjà vu😡 https://teawithft.blogspot.com/search/label/secular%20stagnation

@PerKurowski

True elite should fight odious polarization and not allow itself to be painted into a corner by the neo-parochialism of political correctness.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes: “there’s research to show that elites are less likely to part with their biases than the ordinary person. This is probably because they believe themselves to be better educated and informed than the masses, which may well be true. “The elites are ignoring deglobalisation” August 15.

If we include bank regulators as part of the elite (they would hate it if we don’t), these do indeed find it very hard to part with their biases. It is sad because they’ve gotten it totally wrong.

You ask them: Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what is especially dangerous for our bank system because it is perceived or decreed as safe, than against what is perceived risky and therefore poses no threat? Their eyes glaze over and they never answer, except for when they make it as if they’ve heard a coTmplete different question.

The direct consequence of those risk weighted bank capital requirements is plain awful. It only guarantees, especially large exposures, to what’s perceived as especially safe, against especially little capital, dooming our bank systems to especially severe crises. 

Forrohar asks: What is the next big thing the global elite is missing?

My answer would be it is missing out way too much on how polarization and redistribution profiteering, among other empowered by low cost and far reaching social media, is creating odious social divisions that will tear it to pieces.

What could de elite do? To begin with, find ways to restrict those peddling opinions for money (donations). Whenever something exploitable in terms of polarization happens, my inbox is swamped by donation requests to allow the favored anti-devil-champion of turn to enter into battle and save us.

Recently Lawrence Summers in “I discovered the rest of America on my summer holiday” described America’s small communities’ parochialism with “The conversations we overheard hewed close to local matters.”

In the discussion of the article on the web I commented “Political correctness, that which only allows focusing on small-predefined sections of an issue, rather than allowing considering its wider context, is a living example of a neo-parochialism you find in universities and big cosmopolitan cities”

Sir, a true elite does not allow itself to be painted into a corner by political correctness.

Red and blue, or, red or blue

@PerKurowski

Risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% to its source of strength, the citizens, is putting the cart before the horse

Sir, I refer to Professor Lawrence Summers’ “The threat of secular stagnation has not gone away” May 7.

Again, for the umpteenth time: Regulators allow banks to hold less capital against what is perceived safe, like houses and friendly sovereigns, than against what is perceived risky, like entrepreneurs. This allows banks to leverage more with the “safer” present economy than with the “riskier” future. 

And this allows banks to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when financing the “safer” present economy than when financing the riskier future, something which causes banks to give too much credit to the current economy, without giving sufficient credit to the future productive means that could generate a much needed debt repayment capacity. 

This has to result in the “slow productivity growth [and] unsound lending and asset bubbles with potentially serious implications for medium-term stability” which is of such great concern to Professor Summers. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why can renowned professors with so much voice, not be able to also understand that if you assign a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign, and one of 100% to the citizens, those who signify a sovereign’s prime source of strength, you are putting the cart before the horse? Are they too statist or, behaving like sovereigns with an après nous le déluge, just too indifferent about the future. 

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

@PerKurowski

Banks now invest based on the risk-adjusted yields of assets adjusted for allowed leverages; that distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy.

Sir, Lawrence Summers, when writing about the challenges Jay Powell will face as Fed chairman mentions “Even with very low interest rates, the normal level of private saving consistently and substantially exceeds the normal level of private investment in the US” “Powell’s challenge at the Fed” February 5.

Not too long ago, markets, banks included, invested based on the risk adjusted yields they perceived the assets were offering. Some more sophisticated investors also looked to maximize the risk adjusted yield of their whole portfolio.

But, then in 1988 with Basel I, and especially in 2004 with Basel II, the regulators introduced risk based capital requirements for banks. As a consequence, banks now invest based on the risk-adjusted yields adjusted for the leverage allowed that they perceive the assets offer. As banks are allowed to leverage more with safe assets, which helps to increase their expected return on equity, they now invest more than usual, and at lower rates than usual, in “safe” assets like loans to sovereigns, AAA rated and mortgages. And of course, banks also invest less than usual, and at even higher rates than usual, in loans to the “risky” like entrepreneurs and SMEs.

That has helped to push the “risk free” down, and also explains much of the lowering of the neutral rate. Since the regulators now de facto block the channel of banks to the “risky” part of the economy, there is a lot of private investment that simply is not taking place any longer.

It is sad and worrisome that neither the leaving Fed chairman, Janet Yellen, nor the arriving one, Jay Powell (nor Professor Summers for that matter) can apparently give a clear direct and coherent answer to the very straight forward questions of: “Why do regulators want banks to hold more capital against what’s been made innocous by being perceived as risky, than against what’s dangerous because it’s perceived as safe? Does that not set us up for slow growth and too-big-to-manage crises?

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

@PerKurowski

Professor Summers. Keeping mum on how sovereign public borrowings are currently subsidized is cheating on the future

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “Borrowing to pay for tax cuts is a way of deferring, not avoiding, pain. Ultimately the power of compound interest makes even larger tax increases or spending cuts necessary. But in the meantime debt-financed tax cuts raise the trade deficit, and reduce investment thereby cheating the future.” “A Republican tax plan that would help the rich and harm growth” November 6.

Sir, Prof Summers is entirely correct in that “Borrowing to pay for tax cuts is a way of deferring, not avoiding, pain”. But, one major reason for why such borrowing can occur is that it is currently contracted at artificially low rates.

With the regulatory subsidy imbedded in the capital requirements for banks’ 0% risk weighting of sovereign debt; and with the stimuli provided by the Fed with its low interest policy and huge quantitative easing programs, America’s current government’s borrowing costs do not reflect the real undistorted rates.

Without these non-transparent help from their statist colleagues, there is no doubt the interest rates would be higher, the current fiscal deficit higher, and the adjustments needed much clearer.

Sir, since Professor Summers has been consistently ignoring this, he is willing or unwittingly helping to cheat the future too.

@PerKurowski

Professor Summers, more than unions representing the have-jobs, we need someone, anyone, representing the have-not!

Sir, Lawrence Summers, acting more like a union lobbyist, writes that "America needs its labour unions more than ever" September 4.

He does so blithely ignoring that “The shrinking of the union movement to the point where today only 6.4 per cent of private sector workers — a decline of nearly two-thirds since the late 1970s” sort of evidences an irrelevance of the unions. Does he want to make them relevant by force?

Also, when Summers writes “Consumers also appear more likely now to have to purchase from monopolies rather than from companies engaged in fierce price competition meaning that pay checks do not go as far” that squares little with the current low inflation.

Years ago, I wrote an Op-Ed titled “We need decent and worthy un-employments”. In it I argued that politicians are giving too much relative importance, and spending too many tax dollars, on creating jobs, and that it is high time to start thinking about what to do with those who will never ever have access to what we now consider is a job.

So in that respect I am certainly not too much keen on having unions fighting for those blessed by jobs, if that hurts in any way shape or form those who would want to have jobs but cannot get jobs.

Universal basic income seems to represent one alternative of how to face the challenge of structural unemployment. Finance professors would be much more useful thinking about smart ways how to fund an UBI than getting teary eyed nostalgic about union power.

Summers also writes: “The central issue in American politics is the economic security of the middle class and their sense of opportunity for their children”

Sir, anyone who keeps mum about how current risk weighted capital requirements give banks incentives to not finance the riskier future, but only to refinance the safer past has, as I see it, no right to speak about our children’s opportunities.

@PerKurowski

Are we better off with robots able to compete with berry pickers than with those able to compete with CEOs?

Sir, Lawrence Summers hits out at the possibility of taxing robots and writes: “Surely it would be better for society to instead enjoy the extra output and establish suitable taxes and transfers to protect displaced workers? It is hard to see why shrinking the pie, rather than enlarging it as much as possible and then redistributing, is the right way forward.”, “Leave robots tax-free to assemble a profitable future” March 6.

Right on... BUT! On the first: why should “less-fortunate workers” be displaced only because they are burdened with for instance payroll taxes or minimum wages, while robots are not, and so that their owner/bosses can earn more?

On the second: why should we have those robots that compete at the lower end of the labor market, be the main pie enlargers? If robots were taxed, then they would have to be much more efficient, and we would perhaps have a better chance of getting the 1st class robots we really want our grandchildren to have at their disposal.

I mean does Professor Summers really feel that the economy has been enlarged when, instead of being able to exchange some words at the supermarket with a human cashier, we have to settle with an automated cashier giving us instructions with an automated voice, and turning us into their submissive servants?

PS. Bill Gates, who is far from being the first to speak about taxing robots, wants us to use those revenues to enlarge the franchise value of the redistribution profiteers. Other of us want to use these instead to partially fund a Universal Basic Income, which could be part of the tools needed to create decent and worthy conditions, for all those unemployments robots and automation cause. But, last time I read it, Professor Summers was on the side of those considering we cannot afford a UBI plan.

PS. When Professor Summers writes, “Why pick on robots?” I am sure he knows we are not only picking on robots but on any artificial substitute for humans efforts that has been inhumanly favored.

PS. Are American workers really competing against Chinese and Mexican workers, or against American, Chinese and Mexican robots?

@PerKurowski

Do risk weighted capital requirements for banks promote or kill the animal spirits Lawrence Summers think important?

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “Animal spirits are as fickle as they are important”, “A bitter comedown from Trump’s sugar high” January 17.

Question: Does Professor Summers believe that the pillar of our bank regulations since 1988, the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, promotes or kills those animal spirits he thinks important?

As for me I have no doubts it kills it! Giving banks extra incentives to go in pursuit of the safe and abandon the risky just means that what’s decreed, concocted or perceived as safe, will get too much bank credit, at too low interests, while that which is perceived as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, will get too little or in too expensive terms.

If there is any animal spirit left in the banks after that, then surely it is not those of lions but those of hyenas.

P.S. Professor Summers, you who know so much, would you on behalf of bank regulators dare advance some answers to the following questions?

@PerKurowski

The fiscal accounts of most nations seem to be out of whack. Universal Basic Income would help regain much order

Sir, I refer to Lawrence Summers’ “Trump’s misguided tax reform plans” December 5.

It reads quite, or even very correct, but as so many other recent writings by economists, it does not stimulate taking a strong position in favor or against, that because it is getting harder and harder to distinguish real economic prognosis from fake politically framed one.

Everywhere we look we get the feeling we have lost control over the fiscal accounts and government activities in general… no matter who is in charge. Since it is we citizens who at the end of the day are going to pay for whatever happens, it behooves us to urgently put some order to our government’s affairs. 

The most expeditious way for that could be to use a Universal Basic Income scheme to separate, as much as possible, redistribution, from the rest of government activities.

Doing so, by means of an all citizen to all citizens affair, we would be better able to understand what is going on, and presumably governments would thereafter be more elected on the basis of who offers the best in what should be a governments primary responsibilities to all, and not based on who offers the most to some.

Of course, to diminish the redistribution role of governments will be no easy affair. That is not only because redistribution profiteers will naturally fight back; but also because after so many years of being brought up on the need to cry for a larger share of the redistribution pot, voters have become more genetically disposed to be beggars of favors.

That said, if a UBI is used, we must make sure that it is funded with real money… no funny money, no debt.

It could be funded with savings in current redistribution costs, carbon taxes, payroll taxes on robots, driverless cars and similar human employment substitutes, or by special taxes on income and wealth.

That would provide stimulus for the economy, while at the same time allow all who want jobs to easier reach up to the growing gig economy.

PS. In resource rich countries, like Venezuela and Nigeria, it SHOULD primarily be funded by like the net oil revenues.

@PerKurowski

Odious bank regulations have hurt the working class the last decades more than Trump could do during four years

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “Not even US presidents with political mandates can repeal the laws of economics…Populist economics will play out differently in the US than in emerging markets. But the results will be no better”, “A badly-designed US stimulus will only hurt the working class” November 14.

But neither can almost self-appointed bank regulators repeal the laws of economic.

With their “more risk more capital – less risk less capital” technocrats send politicians and the general public the populist message that doing so, would help to stave of bank crisis without affecting growth.

For a starter that was pure nonsense since major bank crises are never the result of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as risky when incorporated on the balance sheet.

But much worse the populist technocrats assigned a risk weight of zero percent to the government and 100% to We the People.

Since that can only be based on the so statist and so false assumption that government bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit than SMEs and entrepreneurs, productivity and job creation has of course been negatively affected.

The wealthy, at least in the short term, are better positioned to survive any dumb regulatory distortions than the working class. Long term, much less can the young, those who can only count on abundant risk-taking by the private sector to generate an economy that could serve their needs in the future.

Lawrence Summers is fixated on fixing the potholes of today, without concerning himself about who could use those pothole free roads efficiently tomorrow, generating profits and jobs.

Lawrence Summers also insists on that the public sector should take advantage of the very low interest rates to take on more debt, and do more infrastructure investments. That is because he resists the idea that those low interest rates might in much be the result of very costly regulatory subsidies to the sovereign, paid by us We the People, workers, SMES and entrepreneurs.

Sir, as I see, it if we insist going down the current bank regulations road, there will be an immense scarcity of basements where the unemployed young can live with their parents. 

PS. Here’s a link to what Professor Lawrence Summers answered me last week during IMF’s Annual Research Conference. 

@PerKurowski

No “regulatory arbitrage” distorts more than regulators’ dumb and arbitrary risk weighted capital requirements for banks

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “The focus of international economic co-operation more generally needs to shift from opportunities for capital to better outcomes for labour. [That] will require substantially enhanced cooperation with respect to what might be thought of the as the dark side of capital mobility — money laundering, regulatory arbitrage, and tax avoidance and evasion.” “Voters sour on traditional economic policy” October 10.

No! The darkest side of capital mobility is how the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks is distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. Compared to that the damages caused by “money laundering, regulatory arbitrage, and tax avoidance and evasion” are peanuts.

And Summers also holds that “Recessions come intermittently and unpredictably. Containing them generally requires 5 percentage points of rate cutting”

That might apply to normal recessions, but when these have resulted from insane bank regulations, no rate cutting will help in a sustainable way, unless you get rid of the distortions.

It is also amazing to see how experts can lose contact with their inner common sense and, for instance, come to believe that the very risky below BB- rated assets are more dangerous to the banking systems than the AAA rated ones.

By the way there is nothing "traditional" about such regulatory stupidity... it just tracks back to 1988, Basel I.

PS. Here again is an aide memoire that explains some of the regulatory monstrosities.

@PerKurowski ©

Martin Wolf, motorcycles are much riskier, and that’s precisely why more people die in car accidents

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “The determinants of the secular decline in the real natural (or neutral) rate of interest are forces affecting the supply and demand for funds. These include ageing, slowing productivity growth, falling prices of investment goods, reductions in public investment, rising inequality, the “global savings glut” and shifting preferences for less risky assets” “Monetary policy in a low rate world”, September 14.

Not a word about the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. These have created regulatory incentives for banks to avoid, much more than usual, any riskier assets, like loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, and to concentrate, much more that usual, on assets that are perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, like loans to the Sovereign and to the AAArisktocracy. And that has to slow the growth of productivity and cause the real economy to stall and fall.

That motorcycling is perceived as much more riskier, and that precisely because of that, more people die in car accidents, is a reality that neither our current bank regulators nor Martin Wolf can seem to understand, confused as they are by what is ex ante and what is ex post risks.

Like Lawrence Summers Wolf opines “Today’s remarkably low real interest rates mean that a big push on public investment has never been more opportune.”

Yeah, yeah trust more in government bureaucrats than in the “risky” private sector, and leave the bill to future generations.

@PerKurowski ©

Lawrence Summers wants to get the quality infrastructure jobs now, and leave the bill to future generations

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes “Infrastructure investment can create quality jobs [and] expand the economy’s capacity in the medium term and mitigate the huge maintenance burden we would otherwise pass on to the next generation” “Building the case for greater infrastructure investment” September 12. 

And since that is based on taking on more public debt that shamefully sounds like: “Dear lets go out tonight to enjoy that great restaurant. We can leave the bill to our grandchildren, as the interest rates they have to pay are so low.”

Summers backs up his proposal with some calculations that start with “The McKinsey Global Institute has estimated a 20 per cent rate of return on such investments.”

Well Professor Summers, and McKinsey, and so many other, because they do not know, or because they are pushing a statist agenda, completely ignore the fact that currently the sovereign, meaning the government represented by government bureaucrats, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, is risk weighted at 0%; while We the People, represented by SMEs and entrepreneurs have to carry a risk weight of 100%.

That subsidizes the borrowing costs of the government, by the taxing the possibilities of accessing bank credit of those who we need most to have access to bank credit.

Of course much infrastructure investment needs to be done, but, in order for there being an economy that could use such infrastructure, much more important is it to take down that odious regulatory wall.

Sir, again, banks are no longer financing our grandchildren’s future, they are only refinancing mine, yours, Professor Summers’s and all McKinsey’s safer past.

What a disgraceful way of giving the finger to that intergenerational social contract Edmund Burke wrote about.

@PerKurowski ©

Martin Wolf seems slightly lost in the oceans of global bank regulations

“A natural connection exists between liberal democracy.. and capitalism... They share the belief that people should make their own choices as individuals and as citizens.” “Democratic capitalism is in peril” August 31.

Absolutely! But Martin Wolf seems not to agree with the right of accessing bank credit freely, and gladly accepts regulators distort with risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

Wolf opines: “Capitalism is inegalitarian, at least in terms of outcomes”

Absolutely not! Capitalism both takes away from the lazy and by offering opportunities, gives to those with initiatives and is therefore extremely egalitarian! It is when besserwissers, like those in the Basel Committee intervene, that capitalism stands no chance to deliver opportunities for all.

Wolf writes: “Today, however, capitalism is finding it far more difficult to generate such improvements in prosperity.”

Yes, how could it not, when regulators allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to the safe than when lending to the risky.

Wolf writes: “Controlled national capitalism would then replace global capitalism”

Frankly, has that not already happened with the risk weights of the sovereigns set at 0% and that of We the People at 100%?

Wolf writes “My view increasingly echoes that of Prof Lawrence Summers of Harvard, who has argued that “international agreements [should] be judged not by how much is harmonised or by how many barriers are torn down but whether citizens are empowered… if the legitimacy of our democratic political systems is to be maintained, economic policy must be orientated towards promoting the interests of …the citizenry”

Sir, frankly, how can citizens be empowered when bank regulators decide that the risk weight of the sovereign is 0%, that of the AAArisktocracy 20%, and that of We the People 100%?

Democratic capitalism is in peril? No it has already been defeated. To recover it let’s get rid of current bank regulators and their dumb regulations.

PS. Here is one new attempt to get people like Martin Wolf to understand what has happened. 

@PerKurowski ©

“Progressives” can promote fairness and growth by stopping bank regulator’s despicable discrimination against “risky”

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “Often in economics there are trade-offs. But not always. We can and must promote both fairness and growth. “The progressive case for championing pro-growth policies” August 8.

And for that he recommends: “more demand for the product of business. This is the core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness”

Again Summers seems to ignore completely what one could believe would be a great cause for “progressives”, namely to combat how the last decades those who are perceived as risky, when compared to those perceived as “safe”, have had their access to credit made much more difficult by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks

Who are “the risky”? In terms of growth, the all important SMEs and entrepreneurs, those risk weighted 100% (and more).

Who are “the risky”? In terms of fairness, the weaker, the poorer, the not yet up there, the ones praying for fair opportunities.

So how can we explain that progressives do not give much attention to these regulations that so odiously discriminate in favor of the AAArisktocracy and against "the risky"? Perhaps because these also include the risk-weight of 0% for the government, and most progressives are foremost statist.

Perhaps because it is not in the nature of progressives to understand, and much less admit, that regulators can get it so wrong.

@PerKurowski ©

Most economists do still not understand the current regulatory distortion of the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Sir, Tim Harford, when analyzing and questioning the economic arguments on Brexit writes of “the low reputation of economists, the result of a global financial crisis that only a few in the profession warned us against”, “Metropolitan myths that led to Brexit” July 23. And among “the four articles of centre-left faith” Harford brings up that of the “economists are reliably wrong”.

Yes, the economists did not warn, as they should have done, had they been interested, as they should have been. But so much worse is it that, after all the evidence of a crisis that breaks out because of excessive exposures to “safe” assets, those assets against which banks were allowed to hold very little capital, most economists do still not understand how the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. Or is it they just do not care? Or is it that they just do not dare to criticize?

I am just going through “Progress and Confusion: The State of Macroeconomic Policy” edited by Olivier Blanchard, Raghuram Rajan, Kenneth Rogoff and Lawrence Summers; recently published by IMF and MIT. The book has its origin in a conference organized by IMF in April 2015 titled “Rethinking Macro Policy”, the third one.

In it only Anat R. Admati refers to “distortion” and writes: “The presence of overhanging debt creates inefficiencies… In banking such distortions may result in biases in favor of speculative trading or credit card or subprime lending and against creditworthy business”.

Good for her, Admati is one of the few on the right track. Unfortunately, she has not yet fully grasped the fact that allowing banks to leverage their equity, and the support they receive from society differently, depending on ex ante perceived risks, produces a totally different set of expected risk-adjusted ROEs than those that would result without such regulatory distortion.

And the confusion between ex ante perceived risks and ex post realities persists. When Admati mentions “subprime lending” she refers to it as something risky, forgetting the risk-weights for those operations was (and is) 20 to 35%; and when she writes about “creditworthy business”, most of it was (and is) risk weighted at 100%

Frankly, all those economists who regulate banks without clearly defining the purpose of the banks, are putting a very black mark on our profession.

All risk management must begin by clearly identifying those risks we cannot afford not to take… and, in banking, we cannot afford the banks not to take the risks the real economy needs.

PS. Dare read about the so many mistakes!

@PerKurowski ©

The Basel Committee for Tropical Forest Supervision fumigates “risky” creatures and thereby kills its biodiversity.

Sir, Lawrence Summers discusses “the challenges currently facing macroeconomic policymakers in the US and the rest of the industrial world”. He expresses concern that policies could be behind the curve and believes central bankers’ communicate “a sense that there was relatively little left that they can do to strengthen growth or even to raise inflation” “A world stumped by stubbornly low inflation” March 7.

Oh no! There is much to do. Urgently!

Rain forests provide ecosystem services that play an important role in maintaining biological diversity, global climate regulation, disease control, pollination and much more.

What would we opine about forest guardians eradicating scrub-itch mites, ticks, spiders, scorpions, centipedes, wasps, hairy caterpillars, leeches, snakes, stinging tree, lawyer vine and other of the natural habitat, only on account that these are dangerous creatures?

Well that is exactly what bank regulators, central banks, have been doing to our real economies. With their credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, they fight the SMEs and entrepreneurs only on account these are risky from a credit point of view.

And they are so fanatical that they do not warn bankers about hidden unexpected ex post dangers, they act even when bankers ex ante perceive the scorpions they know they should expect to be dangerous.

And of course our real economies, lacking more and more in diversity, stop to function as they should. 

And so we must urgently get rid of the current dumb bunch of forest guardians who, when trying to save banks from “The Risky”, are dangerously fumigating our real economies. The fact that even the central bankers communicate there is little they can do, is just another clear sign it is hight time for that.

@PerKurowski ©

“A free lunch?” That depends a lot on who is doing the cooking. The Basel Committee’s lunch is both expensive and bad

Sir, Lawrence Summers writes: “The strengthening of regulation reduces the incidence of financial crises, thus improving economic performance while promoting fairness by helping consumers.” “No free lunches but plenty of cheap ones” February 8.

That could happen, but please let us not confuse strengthening with dumbing.

Right now the pillar of bank regulations is the risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more ex ante perceived risk more capital – less ex ante perceived risk less capital.

That, by making the access to SMEs and entrepreneurs, “the risky”, more difficult than the one for “the safe”, sovereigns and AAArisktocracy, hardly promotes fairness, it actually promotes inequality, and neither does it help consumers in need of job opportunities.

But let us also not ignore that major bank crisis never result from excessive exposure to something that was ex ante perceived as risky, but always from excessive exposure to something ex ante perceived as safe but that ex post turned out to be very risky. And, in this respect, these regulations, allowing for too little capital when real shit hits the fan, also increase the severity of the really big financial crises.

“No free lunches?” Well as we can see that would also very much depend on who is doing the cooking, and of who are having lunch. Currently our bank regulators are serving us both a very expensive and lousy lunch. 

@PerKurowski ©

How can we wean the world off horrendously mistaken bank regulations?

Sir, Robert Zoellick writes: “After seven years of extraordinary governmental stimulus, the world needs a shift from exceptional monetary policies to private sector-led growth… Three possible ways to generate growth stand out for 2016.” “How to wean the world off monetary stimulus” January 19.

Then Mr Zoellick lists: Lawrence Summers’ “big government spending, especially on infrastructure, financed by borrowing at extremely low interest rates”;

Kenneth Rogoff’s “ease debtors’ plights by keeping rates low or even negative, and by restructuring debt, while setting the stage for productive investment”;

Michael Spence’s, and Kevin Warsh’s “emphasise that the demand that will drive private capital investment, which should support higher wages and profits, is expected future demand [so] policies intended to boost demand in the near term can actually discourage business confidence in the future”

And finally “others call for tax and regulatory policies to encourage private sector investment and employment”

I find myself squarely among the latter. Getting rid of that nonsense of credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks would eliminate that distortion that impedes bank credit reaching where it could do the most good, namely to those SMEs and entrepreneurs who most depend on bank credit to lend them the opportunities for helping to move theirs and ours economies forward.

As a member of Civil Society, whatever that now means, at a Civil Society Town-hall Meeting during the 2010 Annual Meetings, I had the opportunity to pose the following question to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, and to Robert B. Zoellick, the President of the World Bank:

“Right now, when a bank lends money to a small business or an entrepreneur it needs to put up 5 TIMES more capital than when lending to a triple-A rated clients. When is the World Bank and the IMF speak out against such odious discrimination that affects development and job creation, for no good particular reason since bank and financial crisis have never occurred because of excessive investments or lending to clients perceived as risky?”

I got, not splendid but reasonably good answers from both. Unfortunately, 5 years later very little has been done about how to wean the world off some lousy bank regulations, probably because regulators are more concerned with covering up their mistakes.

PS. In 2011, in the same venue, I repeated a similar question, all to no avail.

@PerKurowski ©

Current bank regulators do not hope for the best nor do they plan for the worst.

Sir, Lawrence Summers concludes: “Policymakers should hope for the best and plan for the worst” “Heed the fears of the financial markets” January 11

But let me note that current credit risk-weighted capital requirements for banks are based on the opposite principle.

What would be the best? That the risky turn out to be safe. Do they hope for that? Absolutely not, they even prohibit that hope. They require the banks to hold more capital against what is perceived risky than what is perceived safe.

What would be the worst? That the safe turn out to be risky. Do they plan for that? Absolutely not! They allow banks to hold especially little capital when lending to The Safe.

@PerKurowski ©