A Universal Basic Income deserves to be implemented fast but carefully, little by little.

Sir, Lex writes:“Either the Universal Basic Income (UBI) has to be unrealistically low or the tax rate to finance it is unacceptably high. Suppose the US provided its 327m inhabitants with $10,000 a year. That would be less than the 2018 official poverty threshold of $13,064. But it would cost 96 per cent of this year’s federal tax take.”“{Universal basic income: } money for nothing” May 20.

Let’s face it, the UBI, being an unconditional payment, eats into the franchise value of the redistribution profiteers, and so there are many out there wanting it never to be launched or, if it is, to be unsustainable. The usual way to sabotage it, is precisely arguing that if it is too small it does not solve anything, or if it is too large, it is fiscally unsustainable.

In my mind UBI, the basing building block for the decent and worthy unemployments we need before social order starts to break down, and therefore such an immensely valuable social experiment, deserves to start small, but fast, and grow, slowly, to where the future will and can take it. 

The tricks for a successful launch of a Universal Basic Income are:

1. That it helps all to get out of bed but that it never is so big so as to allow anyone to stay in bed. In other words that it is a stepping stool that helps everyone to reach up to whatever there is in the real economy.

2. That it starts small enough and grows little by little so as to guarantee its absolute revenue sustainability. It should never be an UBI for the current generation paid by future generations.

3. That its revenue sources should as much as possible be aligned with other social interests, like a carbon tax that helps fight climate change; or sources aligned with the new times, like taxes on robots, intellectual property and exploitation of citizens’ data.

Sir, the UBI should have as little as possible to do with government and politics, that because it should foremost be as a citizen to citizen’s affair.

PS. In countries blessed with high natural resource revenues, these should feed a much larger UBI, but that is because of the importance of reducing the concentration, in the hands of a centralized government, of income that does not come from taxes paid by citizens.

@PerKurowski

Different bank capital requirements for different assets are worse than too little or too much bank capital.

Sir, Lex opines “Debates over bank capital resemble tennis rallies… On one side of the net you have the big global banks. They say they have plenty of capital and that forcing them to operate with more is a restraint on trade. Pow! On the other side are the regulators, who say more capital is better because you never know what losses you may have to absorb. Thwack!” "Bank capital: silly old buffer" August 31

But there are some few, like me, who argue that much worse than there being much or little capital, is that there are different capital requirements for banks, based on the perceived risk of assets. Riskier, more capital – safer, less capital. In tennis terms it would be like judges allowing those highest ranked to be able to play with the best tennis rackets, and the last ranked to play with ping-pong rackets. And of course that distorted the allocation of bank credit.

Populism? What’s more populist than, “We will make your bank systems safer with our risk-weighted capital requirements for banks”? 

PS. Here is somewhat more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

@PerKurowski

The US 2008 financial crisis was born April 28, 2004 – and different bank capital for different assets are worse than too little or too much bank capital.

Sir, I must refer to Janan Ganesh’s “Political distemper preceded the financial crisis” August 30, in order to make the following two comments:

1. “A financial crisis that was experienced as a fragmented chain of events is being commemorated as just one: the fall of Lehman Brothers, 10 years ago next month.”

That is only because the truth shall not be named. In the case of the United States, that crisis started on April 28, 2004 when the SEC decided that the supervised investment bank holding company ("SIBHC"), like Lehman Brothers, “would be required periodically to provide the Commission with consolidated computations of allowable capital and risk allowances (or other capital assessment) consistent with the Basel Standards." 

When the Basel standards approved in June 2004 included allowing banks to leverage a mind-boggling 62.5 times with any asset that have been assigned by human fallible credit rating agencies an AAA to AA rating, or had been guaranteed by an AAA rated corporation like AIG, the crisis began its construction. That in the European Union the authorities also included allowing banks to lend to sovereigns like Greece against no capital at all would only worsen the explosion.

Oops! The following part had nothing to do with Janan Ganesh, but all with Lex's "Bank capital: silly old buffer"

2. “Debates over bank capital resemble tennis rallies… On one side of the net you have the big global banks. They say they have plenty of capital and that forcing them to operate with more is a restraint on trade. Pow! On the other side are the regulators, who say more capital is better because you never know what losses you may have to absorb. Thwack!”

But there are some few, like me, who argue that much worse than there being much or little capital, is that there are different capital requirements for banks, based on the perceived risk of assets. Riskier, more capital – safer, less capital. In tennis terms it would be like judges allowing those highest ranked to be able to play with the best tennis rackets, and the last ranked to play with ping-pong rackets. And of course that distorted the allocation of bank credit.

Populism? What’s more populist than, “We will make your bank systems safer with our risk-weighted capital requirements for banks”? 

PS. Here is somewhat more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

@PerKurowski

High bankers bonuses results from having to remunerate very little shareholders’ capital

Lex writes: “More than 700 high earners last year in Deutsche Bank were paid a weighted average of €1.9m a year”. July 11.

What would they be paid if the bank needed to hold 10% in capital against all assets? The equity minimization is the prime driver of high bonuses. 

@PerKurowski

Risk weighted TLAC intensifies the irresponsible regulatory distortion of bank credit allocation to the real economy

Sir, I refer to Eric Platt’s and Ben McLannahan’s “S&P downgrades 8 US lenders on support fears” and to Lex’s “US banks: losing their safety harness”, December 4.

It is mentioned: “Since the financial crisis of 2008-09 regulators have launched a succession of measures designed to ensure that taxpayers will not be burdened again in the event of another Lehman-like crisis, forcing banks to hold more capital and liquid assets while limiting the amounts they can return to shareholders through buybacks and dividends” “Banks are expected to hold total loss absorbing capacity — TLAC — of at least 18 per cent of their risk-weighted assets.” “S&P on Wednesday pronounced the US Federal Reserve’s latest capital rules as up to the task”

So, on top of the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements now regulators want to add this.

18 percent of risk weighted assets means that normal unrated creditors, and those rated between BBB+ to BB-, will generate the bank an 18 percent TLAC requirement, while for example private sector assets rated AAA to AA will only generate a 3.6 percent requirements TLAC. Those unlucky to have a rating below BB- they will generate a 27 percent TLAC requirement, which of course will not make their plight any easier to solve.

I am so amazed at how bank regulators seem to not care one iota about whether their regulations distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. Might it be that they have still not defined the purpose of those banks they are regulating? God, save us from this type of irresponsible regulators.

@PerKurowski ©

With capital buffers thin, European Banks can’t handle the higher capital requirements for small business lending.

Sir, I refer to Lex’s note on the lack demand for ECB’s TLTRO funds, “Eurozone banks: horsing around” December 12.

It holds: “You can lead a horse to water. You can put water in a tall glass, add ice, a wedge of lemon and a cute little paper umbrella. You can bring the bendy straw right up to the horse’s lips. But if the horse is not thirsty, it will not drink.”… And so “Reluctance to take cheap money gives credence to the bank’s claims that low business lending is down to a lack of demand”.

BUT, “An alternative explanation, advanced by RBS, is that the low take up highlights the bank’s lack of capital. With capital buffers thin they do not want the risk of small business lending”.

CLOSE, but not really so. The truth is that “with capital buffers thin” they cannot handle those much higher capital requirements that comes associated with the supposedly risky “small business lending”.

How many times have I explained to FT over the last few years that the current risk-weighted capital requirements for banks impede the banks to efficiently allocate bank credit? Hundreds!

PS. In my homeland, Venezuela, after 15 years of being a columnist in its most important daily newspaper, I was among the four first to be expelled without thanks, when government agents purchased that paper. That’s how it is, in a country where the government receives directly 97 percent of all the nations exports.

But how does it work in Britain? Can an editor or some other influential person, order those working in a paper, for instance in FT, to ignore the arguments of someone… for whatever reason?

FT why do you not care for who really pays for current bank regulation presents?

Sir, LEX writes “previous banking conflagrations show that in good times regional banks like to pile on leverage almost as much as big ones”, “Bank regulation: no presents yet”, November 6.

But of course! I can understand that comment being made by a small local paper but… by FT? Is it not self evident that the duty of any bank manager is to provide the highest risk adjusted returns for their shareholders (and for their own bonuses)?

And does he not achieve that by piling up on assets like those perceived as “absolutely safe”, and which regulators have blessed with ultra-low capital/equity requirements, meaning ultra-high leverages?

And talking about regulatory presents to banks… why Sir, is FT seemingly not at all concerned with who really pays for those presents?

The high risk adjusted returns on bank equity are directly paid for by those perceived as “risky” borrowers, by means of higher relative interest rates or much less access to bank credit and, in the final count, by the economy, and by the young who as a consequence will face unemployment. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

And don’t give us that b.s. of the taxpayer paying… what he needs to pay for are for the excessive bank exposures created to something ex ante perceived as “absolutely safe” and that ex post turns up to be very risky.

SEC, FDIC Worry less about bank´s living wills and more about how banks live!

Sir, Lex reports on the Fed and FDIC wanting “Bank’s living wills”, August 9.

Not only do I find bank living wills somewhat preposterous, as it would be up to the inheritors to decide what to do, not to those administrators of a bank that when a collapse might occur might have de facto been proven very bad.

And, what if the SEC and FDIC do not like the wills… will they pressure the banks so much that they might collapse because of that?

No, much more important than what happens to banks when they are gone is what they do when they are alive and kicking… and now, thanks in much to the distortions created by the regulators with their risk-based capital requirements, the banks are not allocating credit efficiently. And… excuse me, that´s a far more serious problem.

Lex, explain why you consider a straight leverage ratio inferior to a risk-weighted assets ratio?

Current capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks using risk-weights allow banks to leverage more the risk adjusted margins when lending to “The Infallible” than when lending to “The Risky”; which means making a higher expected return on assets when lending to “The Infallible” than when lending to “The Risky”; which means that “The Infallible”, those already favored by markets and banks will be even more favored, while “The Risky”, those already discriminated against by banks and markets, precisely because they are perceived as “risky”, will be even more discriminated against.

And that of course creates the danger of excessive exposures to those of “The Infallible” who do not turn out to be really infallible, precisely those who have caused all major bank crises in history, as of course “The Risky” have never ever done that; in this case aggravated by the fact that bank then will have extremely little capital.

And that of course impedes the banks completely to perform their social function of helping us to allocate economic resources as efficiently as possible.

And so LEX, please explain to us why, in your column of February 27, you consider a straight leverage ratio inferior to a risk-weighted assets ratio?

And if you absolutely want to risk-weighed, because you cannot refrain from interfering, then why would not the capital requirements for banks for exposures to “The Infallible” be slightly higher than for exposures to “The Risky”, as all empirical data suggests?

How ridiculously childish and naïve can we allow our bank regulators to be?

Sir, Lex reports, on January 2, that now the credit rating agencies will “have to register, meet corporate governance standards and accept supervisory oversight, [which] should make it easier to sue agencies if they issue grossly negligent or deliberately erroneous ratings”.

And I just have to ask: And so now, when we are supposed to trust the credit rating agencies even more than before, something which can only mean digging ourselves deeper in the hole we’re in, who is going to rate the credit rating agencies’ financial capacity to make up for calamitous mistakes like the AAA ratings awarded to the securities collateralized with lousily awarded mortgages to the subprime sector in the USA? 

The naïveté of our bank regulators is just mindboggling.

Tax-payers, caveat emptor, “Our banks are regulated by the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board"!

Lex woke up!

Sir the Lex Column "Basel Denominators" September 16 ends with: “Historically, true crisis are caused by assets perceived as low-risk that aren´t.”

That as you all must be aware of by now, has been one of the two main reasons for my criticism against the current regulatory paradigm that has been imposed by the Basel Committee on the banks… that of higher capital requirements on what is perceived as risky and lower for what is perceived as not risky, and that goes against everything that financial history teaches us.

Since realizing the above makes of course current bank regulations completely nonsensical it will be interesting to see how FT handles this issue from now on.

On my second reason for criticizing Basel you might want to go to the last post of Dominique Strauss-Kahn on the IMF blog. http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2010/09/14/saving-the-lost-generation/#comment-2762

Some subprime heads need to roll.

Sir, The Lex Column of July 11, with respect to the subprime-mortgage-backed-securities and the rating agencies affaire duly says “Could the rating agencies have acted sooner? Possibly. True, it is not their job to simply react to market moves”. Nonetheless the column opens by citing John Maynard Keynes with “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” and this is highly inappropriate and exculpatory since the basic truth coming out is that there has been not one single factual change but only the discovery of some amazing sloppy job, not only by those issuing the subprime mortgages but also by those rating the resulting securities.

I have until now not heard a single word about one single credit rating employee fired because of such an obviously shoddy work and if there is no one made responsible at this stage the future will only set us up to even much worse result. I am not suggesting anything like the recent execution of a regulator in China for what there was a clear case of corruption but, figuratively speaking, some subprime heads got to roll too… and of course some wallets be emptied.