A Neo-Inquisition is at work protecting mutual admiration clubs, like the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision

Sir, Ian Goldin writes “Today, the increasing depth of knowledge in any field means that greater specialisation is needed to master ideas. Yet this stifles creativity and the ability to grapple with real-world problems, whose messy complexity has less and less in common with the increasingly fragmented disciplines and professional specialisation” “Da Vinci code: what the tech age can learn from Leonardo” April 29.

Indeed, and that is most clearly evidenced by expert specialized regulators coming up, within the walls of a mutual admiration club, with risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which are based, not on the dangers bank assets could pose to the banking system, but simply on their ex ante perceived credit risk… as if bankers did not perceive these… as if bankers loved taking risks… as if not all major bank crisis had resulted from something ex ante perceived as safe turning up ex post as something very risky. 

Goldin rightly opines: “For progress to prevail, evidence-based, innovative and reasoned thinking must triumph. Genius thrived in the Renaissance because of the supportive ecosystem that aided the creation and dissemination of knowledge — which then was crushed by the fearful inquisitions. Today, tolerance and evidence-based argument are again under threat.”

Indeed those bank regulations, which blatantly failed in 1988, when AAA rating turned out wrong, and which are building up dangerous exposures to 0% risk weighted sovereigns and to 15%-35% residential mortgages, are still not discussed.

In response to a public request of comments on SMS financing, I sent a letter to the Financial Stability Board. It began this way:

“I have not found sufficient strength to sit down and formally write up my comments, because I feel I would just be like a heliocentric Galileo writing to a geocentric Inquisition.

The Basel Committee’s standardized risk weights are based on the presumption that what is ex ante perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system.

And I hold a totally contrarian opinion. I believe that what is perceived a safe when placed on banks balance sheets to be much more dangerous to our bank system ex post than what is perceived ex ante as risky; and this especially so if those “safe” assets go hand in hand with lower capital requirements, meaning higher leverages, meaning higher risk adjusted returns on equity for what is perceived safe than for what is perceived as risky.”

Sir, that letter managed to get nailed on FSB’s web-doors and I’m waiting to see what will be its destiny.

PS. In these days when the filthy rich are so much abhorred, there’s room to ask whether Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi and Mona Lisa would ever have been painted if not commissioned by some filthy rich.

PS. In FT November 2004: “Basel is just mutual admiration club of firefighters seeking to avoid crisis”

@PerKurowski

When the “filthy rich” buy assets, they might do it good or bad, but they are de facto voluntarily redistributing money.

Sir, Tim Harford writes “Researchers concerned about the concentration of money in the hands of a small number of people tend to focus on the income or wealth share of high earners”, “All things are not equal in measuring inequality” August 18.

Indeed, all things are not equal, the income or wealth shares of high earners, c'est pas la même chose.

The debates on inequality, promoted mostly by redistribution profiteers, conveniently ignore that the moment money, meaning Main-street purchasing power, is exchanged for an asset, it has effectively been redistributed, to the vendors of those assets.

So yes, governments can redistribute money, but that does not mean it can redistribute wealth as easy, and without possibly serious unexpected consequences.

Not long ago, someone really wealthy, by means of a sort of voluntary tax, froze US$ 450 million of his real purchasing power on a wall, by acquiring Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. How do you redistribute that painting? One way is to get another filthy rich to redistribute his money buying it, most probably for less. Another way might be cutting it in thousands of small-certified pieces and thereby allow many much less wealthy to buy these, and thereby perhaps redistribute much more than US$ 450 million. Should we proceed to hack up Salvator Mundi?

Sir, at the end of the day, the one question that always lingers is, who redistributes money the best? The usual answer “Me!” or “Us!”

@PerKurowski

How much of billionaires’ wealth might have de facto already been redistributed?

Sir, John Gapper writes interestingly, from the perspective of how these are designed, about “public art museums funded by billionaires”. He concludes in that, as so many follow the same principles; it is beginning to have similitudes to a franchise. “Billionaires are franchising the art museum” August 9.

Currently in the political market, way too often we hear offers phrased in the simplistic terms of: “Let’s take it from the filthy-rich and give it to the poor and, Puff! all odious inequality will have disappeared.”

In order to stop the creation of those false expectations, which at the end only leads to frustrations and the enrichment of the of the redistribution and/or polarization profiteers, by increasing the value of their franchises, there is a real societal need for much more information. 

Like, what wealth to be redistributed are we talking about? How much might billionaires have already de facto redistributed their Main-street purchasing capacity wealth, by demanding and buying assets that no one else but them would be demanding, at least not at those ridiculously high prices?

Not long ago, someone really wealthy, by means of a sort of voluntary tax, froze US$ 450 million of real purchasing power on a wall, by acquiring Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. Sir, I ask, how do you redistribute that painting without perhaps serious unexpected consequences? Cutting it in thousands of small-certified pieces, and selling these in the market for much more than US$ 450 million? 

@PerKurowski

What does “stored wealth” mean? Is it really redistributable, just like that, without any consequences?

Sir, Edward Luce writes: “America’s elites have stored more wealth than they can consume. This creates three problems for everyone else” “The discreet terror of the American bourgeoisie”. February 8.

What does “stored wealth” really mean? You do not hide your main-street purchase capacity in cash under a mattress; you hand it over to someone else in exchange for an asset or a service.

When some very wealthy recently bought Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, he froze, with a sort of voluntary tax, US$450 million on a wall or in a storage room. Those US$450 millions were received and used by some other wealthy or not that wealthy. Should that not have happened? Should he have used his money better? What if those who now have his money know how to put it to much better use?

The war against wealth is raging. Whenever wealth has been obtain by criminal, or by unjustified means, like monopolies or excessive intellectual property rights exploitation, that war makes sense. But, those who preach that all will be well and dandy, if only wealth is redistributed, like from the 1% to the 99%, never explain how one now converts a Salvator Mundi, into fresh main-street purchase power, and the consequences of doing so.

We could assume that much of that lack of explanation is because many of the wealth redistribution fighters are in fact redistribution profiteers interested in increasing the value of their franchise.

PS. Not long ago, visiting the Museum of Louvre, it dawned on me that most of what was exhibited there would not have come into being, were it not for the existence of the filthy rich. Can we really afford, do we really want, to live without them?

@PerKurowski

Leonardo da Vinci, smiling, must be harboring great gratitude to the Fed and ECB for helping his Salvator Mundi to become so highly valued.

Sir, I refer to Josh Spero’s and Lauren Leatherby’s “Record price sparks hunt for Da Vinci painting buyer” November 17.

Surely Leonardo da Vinci wherever he find himself must be smiling and extending his deepest gratitude to Fed’s Janet Yellen and ECB’s Mario Draghi for their QEs and ultra low interest rates. That has allowed him see his Salvator Mundi valued at US$ 450 million much earlier than he could have expected.

And Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi and their colleagues must surely be smiling too. Since Dmitry Rybolovlev bought that painting in 2011 for $127.5m, its current price hints at being successful at reaching an inflation rate target they never dared dream of.

The art curious still do not know who the buyer is, but be sure the redistribution profiteers are also looking after these US$ 450 million to find out how that money escaped their franchise.

Since the latter will surely soon again be talking about inequality I take the opportunity to advance my usual question of: How do you morph such a valuable piece of art into street purchasing power again; that can be used for food and medicines, without the assistance of another extremely wealthy?

@PerKurowski