What the Eurozone would need a common budget the most for, is to help rescue many of its members from their huge risky 0% risk weighted sovereign debts.

Sir, Martin Arnold reports that Mario Draghi, “the outgoing ECB boss repeated his call for eurozone governments to create a sizeable common budget that could be used to provide greater economic stability in the 19-member currency zone by supporting monetary policy during a downturn.” “ECB chief Draghi uses swansong to call for unity” October 29.

As I see it the eurozone, unwittingly, already had a sizable non transparent common budget, namely that of, for purposes of risk weighted bank capital requirements, having assigned to all eurozone sovereigns’ debts, a 0% risk-weight, even though none of these can print euros on their own.

Some of these sovereigns used that privilege, plus ECB’s QE purchases of it, to load up huge debts at very low interest rates, so as to spend all that money. Now things are turning hard for many of these. Greece was small and walked the plank, and had to mortgage its future. Italy might not be willing to do so. There is a clear redenomination risk, and it is being priced more and more. 

So when Draghi now says “We need a euro area fiscal capacity of adequate size and design: large enough to stabilize the monetary union” it is clear he is very subtle referring to the dangers of the euro breaking down.

But when Draghi mention that fiscal capacity should be designed as not “to create excessive moral hazard”, then its harder to understand how that moral hazard could be worse than that already present in that idiotic 0% risk weighting.

What is clear is that for a eurozone common budget to serve any real purpose, those privileged 0% risk weights have first to be eliminated.

Just like it is hard to see some states with good credit standing accepting a 0% risk weight of other in much worse conditions, it would be difficult to explain for instance to Germans why their banks need to hold around 8% in capital when lending to German private entrepreneurs, but no capital at all when lending to the Italian or Greek governments.

How to do that? Not easy but my instincts tell me it begins by allowing banks to keep all their current eurozone sovereign debts exposures against zero capital, but require these to put up 8% of capital against any new purchases of it. That would freeze bank purchases, put a pressure on interest rates to go up, and allow the usual buyers of sovereign debt to return to somewhat better conditions.

But, of course, that might all only be pure optimistic illusions, and all eurozone hell could break out. 

@PerKurowski

The direction into which banks go remains the same as the one before the crisis.

Martin Arnold, discussing the weakening of European banks when compared to the American quotes John Vickers, the former Chair of the UK's Independent Commission on Banking (ICB)with, “You had in effect a huge taxpayer-backed subsidy for risk-taking and that ended in tears. So pulling back from that is directionally a good thing” "How US banks took over the financial world", September 16.

Sir, do you see how little the world has learnt? The huge taxpayer-backed subsidy was not at all for risk-taking but for the excessive build up of exposures to what was perceived as safe, and against which regulators therefore allowed them to hold especially little capital.

“So pulling back from that is directionally a good thing” No! There has unfortunately not been any change in directions. By keeping the risk weighted capital requirements, the banks are still pushed towards what is perceived, decreed or can be concocted as safe, and away from what is perceived as risky.

The reason for it? The fact that the real causes of the bank crisis have been classified by those responsible for these, as something that shall not be named. And Sir, FT, sadly, is complicit in such cover up. In doing so FT, sadly, is absolutely not living up to its motto.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2016/12/here-is-succinct-but-complete.html

@PerKurowski

Sadly, banks must now to take on board rules that were not adjusted to what caused the crisis

Sir, Martin Arnold, your Banking Editor writes: “In the coming year, much of the alphabet soup of post-crisis financial regulation will be completed — including Basel III, IFRS 9 and Mifid II — giving the industry the most clarity for almost a decade on the rule book it must follow.” “Lenders take on board rules of a post-crisis world” December 30.

We are soon three decades after regulators in 1988 with Basel I, concocted risk weighted capital requirements for banks, and 13 years after they put these on steroids with Basel II’s risk weights of 0% for sovereigns, 20% for AAA rated, and 35% for residential mortgages. That caused irresistible temptations for banks to create excessive exposures to these “safe” assets, which resulted in the 2007/08 crisis. And yet there is almost no discussion about that monstrous regulatory mistake.

So the risk weighting is still part of the regulations; and therefore the 0% risk weighted bank exposures to sovereings keeps growing and growing; as well as is the disortion of bank credit in favor of the “safer” present and against the “riskier” future. 

In this respect if I were to title something of this sort at this moment it would be more in line of “Lenders take on board rules that have not been adjusted to the crisis and therefore guarantee a world with even larger bank crises”

The irresponsibility and lack of transparency evidenced by the members of the Basel Committee is amazing. The lack willingness of media, like the Financial Times, to pose some simple questions to these regulators, is just as incomprehensible. 

When the next bank crisis, or the next excessive exposure to something perceived as very safe blows up in our face, how will your bank editor then explain his silence on this?

PS. I could not find the link to Martin Arnold's piece.

@PerKurowski

Sadly, banks must now to take on board rules that were not adjusted to what caused the crisis.

Sir, Martin Arnold, your Banking Editor writes: “In the coming year, much of the alphabet soup of post-crisis financial regulation will be completed — including Basel III, IFRS 9 and Mifid II — giving the industry the most clarity for almost a decade on the rule book it must follow.” “Lenders take on board rules of a post-crisis world” December 30.

We are soon three decades after regulators in 1988 with Basel I, concocted risk weighted capital requirements for banks, and 13 years after they put these on steroids with Basel II’s risk weights of 0% for sovereigns, 20% for AAA rated, and 35% for residential mortgages. That caused irresistible temptations for banks to create excessive exposures to these “safe” assets, which resulted in the 2007/08 crisis. And yet there is almost no discussion about that monstrous regulatory mistake.

So the risk weighting is still part of the regulations; and therefore the 0% risk weighted bank exposures to sovereings keeps growing and growing; as well as is the disortion of bank credit in favor of the “safer” present and against the “riskier” future. 

In this respect if I were to title something of this sort at this moment it would be more in line of “Lenders take on board rules that have not been adjusted to the crisis and therefore guarantee a world with even larger bank crises”

The irresponsibility and lack of transparency evidenced by the members of the Basel Committee is amazing. The lack willingness of media, like the Financial Times, to pose some simple questions to these regulators, is just as incomprehensible. 

When the next bank crisis, or the next excessive exposure to something perceived as very safe blows up in our face, how will your bank editor then explain his silence on this?

@PerKurowski

Damages by Euribor rigging are peanuts compared to bank regulators’ rigging of credit allocation to the real economy

Sir I refer to Rochelle Toplensky and Martin Arnold write on “Brussels will hit HSBC, JPMorgan and Crédit Agricole today with multimillion-euro fines for rigging the Euribor interest rate benchmark” “Three banks fined over rate-rigging” December 7.

For years I have argued that if banks are to be fined, they should pay those fines in shares, since having their capital diminished by forcing them to pay cash, is pure masochism as that will affect their capacity to give credit; and since we also want banks to hold more capital.

But also in this case let me note that whatever damages these banks could have caused with their rigging of Euribor, these are peanuts when compared to what bank regulators did by rigging, with their risk weighted capital requirements, the allocation of credit to the real economy with their risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

If not fined, these regulators should at least be publicly shamed and banned forever from regulating banks… or anything else.

@PerKurowski

Any regulator stress-testing banks that ignores what should be on the balance sheets and is not, should be fired!

Sir, Emma Dunkley and Martin Arnold report on the recent stress testing of British banks performed by Bank of England, “Stress test flop fuels criticism of turnaround efforts at RBS” December 1.

Just want to remind again that bank regulators who only look at what is on the banks’ balance sheets while ignoring entirely what should be there if the banking needs of the real economy were served, should be fired.

And of course the BoE has most probably not done that. That I say because Mark Carney is one of those regulators who see nothing wrong with capital requirements for banks that uses a risk weight of zero percent for the sovereign and 100% for SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Sir, should the stress testing of our banks also say something about their relative usefulness?

In 1997 I ended an Op-Ed with: “If we insist in maintaining a firm defeatist attitude which definitely does not represent a vision of growth for the future, we will most likely end up with the most reserved and solid banking sector in the world, adequately dressed in very conservative business suits, presiding over the funeral of the economy. I would much prefer their putting on some blue jeans and trying to get the economy moving.”

Sir, I have no detailed knowledge about British banks, but what if RBS was the bank serving Britain’s real 

PS. We need some outstanding Main-Street/Real Economy knowledgeable, to stress test bank regulators

@PerKurowski

Ask European SMEs and entrepreneurs if they believe Europe is overbanked?

Sir, I refer to Claire Jones’ and Martin Arnold’s “Bankers signal alarm over Eurozone lenders” October 10.

If were an SME or an entrepreneur, not being able to access the opportunity of the bank credit I need for me to have a chance to fulfill my dreams, I would be furious and desperate if hearing Sergio Ermotti, chief executive of UBS say “Europe is in a huge overcapacity situation, with a combination of private sector and public sector banks and quasi-public sector banks that have been allowed to compete”. 

Gary Cohn, president and chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs is also quoted with, in comparison to Europe and elsewhere with that the US banking sector was “in the best shape ever”. Nonsense, the real strength of any banking sector is a 100% function of the strength of the real economy they depend upon; and few would hold that the US and world economy “in the best shape ever”. That type of affirmation can only come from someone who believes the real economy should be serving the banks, and not caring one iota for need of the banks serving the real economy.

And Nigel Vooght, global head of financial services at PwC, the consultancy is quoted with”: “Banks need to wake up and start to react, because they are an integral part of society, but they don’t have a divine right to be here . . . All the banks are trying to switch from an interest rate-based model to a fee-based model.”

I totally disagree. Banks have, thanks to regulators, not been pursuing “an interest rate-based model” but an interest rate-based capital minimization model. If they are to be an integral part of society, switching from interest rates to fees will just not cut it. Banks need to realize that their fundamental role is to allocate credit efficiently as possible to the real economy, and that’s just not possible using different capital requirements based on ex ante perceived credit risks. 

@PerKurowski ©

Banks, to get out of their dead-end street, must make a convincing case they can prosper holding much more capital.

Sir, James Shotter, Laura Noonan and Martin Arnold write: “At yesterday’s close, investors were implying that the biggest bank in Europe’s most stable economy [Deutsche Bank] is worth €17.7bn, just a quarter of the book value of its assets.” And then we read of efforts to better that by reducing operations and cutting down on risk weighted assets. In other words being placed in an Incredible Shrinking Machine. “Big Read: Deutsche Bank: Problems of scale” July 29.

Because of the risk weighted capital requirements, banks were set on a road of increasing returns on equity by diminishing the capital they needed. And, on that road they lost many opportunities, like lending to “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs. And they also ended up in dangerously over-populated safe-havens that, when compared to the “risky”, suddenly offer lower real-risk adjusted returns. They now are in a dead-end street.

So, if it was me, I would try to make the strongest case possible to my shareholders that there are good and safe returns on equity to be obtained by ignoring Basel regulations. “Give us 12 percent in equity, against all assets, so as to allow us pursue the undistorted highest risk-adjusted returns out there.”

Sir, I have of course no idea if that is a viable strategy for any individual bank, such as Deutsche Bank. Most banks are caught between a rock and a hard place. They need to ask for much capital, but that much capital might be so much, that they could scare away everyone. Anyhow, I would not like to work in a bank that is going to stretch out the suffering by asking for more capital, again and again, little by little. To get it all and get over it would benefit everyone, including current shareholders.

Is that impossible? Not really, here “one of the bank’s top 20 investors” is quoted with “The problem for Deutsche is that it has got to the stage where if it continues to cut assets, it is going to lose a significant amount of revenues”.

And on a different issue, the litigations and fines banks face, I repeat what I said over the years. 

When we all know that for the banks’ good and for our economies’ good banks need more capital, to extract fines paid in cash is irresponsible and masochistic. All those fines should be paid in shares.

@PerKurowski ©

The real UK economy, SMEs and entrepreneurs, need also to be invited to a “fireside chat” with Mark Carney and BoE

Sir, Martin Arnold and Caroline Binham report on the invitation of Bank of England extended to “The heads of the five big UK banks — HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Chartered — along with a few others including Nationwide and TSB”, in order to have a “Fireside chat” May 29.

The real UK economy should also be invited, so that it is given a chance to ask: “Mark Carney, BoE, when compared to that of SMEs and entrepreneurs, when will bureaucrats stop having preferential access to bank credit?”

Let me explain: The current risk weight of the “safe” sovereign is zero percent, and that of “risky” not-rated citizens 100 percent.

That means banks need to hold much less or no capital at all, when lending to the sovereign, than when lending citizens; which means banks can leverage their equity and the support they receive from society (taxpayers) much more when lending to the sovereign than when lending to citizens; which means banks can earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to sovereigns than when lending to citizens; and which means banks favor more and more lending to the sovereign over lending to the citizen. And so the SMEs and the entrepreneurs who basically represent the “not-rated citizens” must face harsher relative conditions accessing bank credit, than those that would prevail in the case all bank assets faced the same capital requirements. 

There could be some discussion on whether lending to sovereigns represent less risk than lending to SMEs and entrepreneurs. I do not believe so. Banks do not create dangerous not diversified excessive exposures to SMEs and entrepreneurs; and, at the end of the day, the sovereign derives all its strength from its citizens.

But I doubt the real economy will be invited to the fireside chat… the regulators do not want to hear: “Sir, especially after Basel II introduced risk-weights that also favor the safer of the private sector, the AAArisktocracy; do you know how many million of loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs around the world have not been awarded, only because of your risk weighted capital requirements for banks? Have you any idea of how many jobs for our young ones have not been created as a direct consequence of this?

@PerKurowski ©

There is risky bank lending and then there is "risky" bank lending

Martin Arnold and Laura Noonan quote Gonzalo Gortázar, chief executive at Spain’s Caixabank with “In a world of low or negative interest rates, that is a possible consequence. You could see banks taking more risk” “Europe bank chiefs fear risky lending from ultra-loose policy” March 22

Of course I cannot be absolutely sure but, when “banks taking more risk” is said, it most probably refers to larger exposures to something that because it is perceived, deemed or sold as safe, carries lower capital requirements.

What is perceived by regulators as risky, like loans to unrated corporations, SMEs or entrepreneurs, and which is risk weighted 100 percent or more, and so require banks to hold more capital, well that’s not the risks banks are taking, unfortunately for the economy.

It would be nice to see reporters digging up a little bit more about what risks is being referred to. In fact, I start any risk assessment by identifying what risk one cannot afford not to take... because that would be too risky.

PS. Another interesting detail is whether it is the ex-ante perceived risk or ex-post resulting risk that is being considered.

@PerKurowski ©

How could it be in the interest of any bank regulators to have CoCos with unclear and haphazard conversion terms?

Sir, I refer to Thomas Hale’s, Martin Arnold’s and Laura Noonan’s discussion on the regulatory uncertainty that exists, “Coco trade seeks to emerge from dark period” February 24.

I am amazed. If I was a bank regulator and I had signaled that one way for banks to cover for the capital regulators required were the CoCo’s, I would want these to be as clear and transparent as possible. That not only to make sure banks could raise these funds in the most competitive terms, but also to be sure I covered my own share of responsibility in the disclosure process.

Something must have gone seriously wrong if there is still such huge regulatory uncertainty. I mean I could not for a second believe that any regulator would want to withhold such information on purpose.

In April 2014 I sent you a letter that asked “Can bank regulators keep silence on the conversion to equity probabilities of cocos?" 

In it I wrote: “Do regulators have any moral or formal duty to reveal to any interested buyers of cocos if they suspect the possibilities of these having to be converted into bank equity being very high? I say this because if so, and if they keep silent on it, that would make them sort of accomplices of bankers. Would it not?... Of course banks need capital, lots of it, but tricking investors into it, does not seem like the right way for getting it.”

In May 2014 I wrote you a letter asking “Is it ok for a regulator, like EBA, to withhold information from 'experienced investors'?"

In it I asked “What would be the legal responsibility of bank regulators, towards any coco-bond investors, if they withheld important information with respect to the possibilities of those bonds being converted into bank equity?”... and also:“Britain´s regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, has said it plans to consult on new rules to ensure cocos are only marketed to experienced investors…Would that imply that a regulator can withhold important information from “experienced investors”? If so, just in case, for the record, I have no knowledge about investments whatsoever.

And then in August 2014 I wrote you a letter that alerted: “The investors had priced market risks of CoCos, not the risks of bankers´ or regulators´ whims.”

But then again regulators might also have decided it was better to go and fly a kite J

@PerKurowski ©

When final history on the bank crisis is written, it is going to be about stupid regulations, and the silencing of it

Sir, I refer to Patrick Jenkins’s and Martin Arnold’s “BEYOND BANKING: Tempestuous times” November 11 and December 9.

Therein Philipp Hildebrand, former head of the Swiss National Bank is quoted with: “The banking model is in many ways getting more like we’re turning the clock back to the early 1990s…When the history books are written, the aberration will not be the past crisis but the 15 years running up to 2007.”

Indeed, when history is written it is going to be about the regulatory aberration of allowing banks to hold so little of that capital that is to be there for unexpected losses, because the expected credit risks seemed low.

Indeed, when history is written it is going to be about how bank regulators never understood that, by allowing different capital requirement for different assets based on perceived credit risks, something which allowed different leverages of bank equity and of the support given to banks by the society, they completely distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Indeed, when history is written it is going to be about that regulatory aberration of setting a zero risk for sovereigns, while assigning a 100 percent risk weight to the private sector.

But when final history is written, it is also going to be about how expert papers like the Financial Times turned a blind eye to all of the above. And this even when someone like me sent it thousands of letters explaining the problems, and this even though they knew that in previous letters they had published, I had correctly alerted on many of the risks.

@PerKurowski ©

Europe and US, care less about how your banks are doing, and more about how these can help your economies do better.

Sir, I refer to Martin Arnold’s “Top European bankers warn of US threat to their future” and 

Frédéric Oudéa's “Europe needs homegrown bulge bracket banks” October 12.

Arnold writes: “The comments by two of Europe’s most senior bankers underline the growing angst in the industry about its performance and prospects. European banks are cutting thousands of jobs, selling billions of euros of assets and repairing balance sheets — while US rivals are expanding and growing stronger.” And Oudea concludes: “Europe also needs a few large players with strong capabilities on financial markets”.

In essence that means a call for bank regulations to be relaxed in order to make some banks stronger and bigger. There is nothing bad with that, at least not with the “stronger” part. But that is not the main priority.

At this moment, both Europe and US, as well as other, need to cast away their concerns about how banks as an industry is performing, and think much more about how banks can best serve the rest of the economy. And if banks were able to do so, that would also serve their own best long term interests.

That should begin with throwing out the risk weighted capital requirements that doubles the sensitivity to credit risk perceptions, and thereby distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

I have no idea where this notion of banks being able to survive splendidly, independently of the state of the overall economy was born. It is not something new, in 1997, having had my first brief encounters with the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks that originated in Basel, I wrote the following in an Op-Ed:

“If we insist in maintaining a firm defeatist attitude which definitely does not represent a vision of growth for the future, we will most likely end up with the most reserved and solid banking sector in the world, adequately dressed in very conservative business suits, presiding over the funeral of the economy. I would much prefer their putting on some blue jeans and trying to get the economy moving.”

@PerKurowski ©  J

Who is to investigate how bank regulators manipulated markets in favor of US Treasury and similar sovereign debts?

In 1988, with the Basel Accord, bank regulators of the G20 countries decided that while the private sector should have a 100 percent risk weighing, their sovereigns, those represented by their bosses, the governments, were so safe so as to validate a zero percent risk weight.

That meant of course that, from that moment on, sovereigns have preferential access to bank credit… something that is of course paid by all those who do not count such preferential treatment.

Since de facto that also means regulators acted as if government bureaucrats could use bank credit more efficiently than the private sector, something that unless we are runaway statists or communists we know is absolutely false, the resulting distortion is also paid by future generations of unemployed.

And so, when compared to that manipulation, all the “potential manipulation of the US Treasury markets” referred to by Gina Chon and Martin Arnold” in “Probe into US Treasury markets” of September 10, is, excuse me, something like what is vulgarly known as chicken shit.

@PerKurowski

Mark Carney: But what are we to do with the irresponsible and unethical behavior of bank regulators?

Sir Caroline Binham and Martin Arnold reports that “Mark Carney, the BoE governor, announced an end to “the age of irresponsibility” and ethical drift, with the introduction of tougher criminal sanctions for market abuse that will be extended to parts of the financial system that have been left alone.” “UK bank governor outlines tough rules” June 11.

Great! That has been long overdue.

And it is also great that Mark Carney acknowledges “the BoE itself was to blame for some failings in markets — including both the Libor and forex scandals — [and] wants a new code of conduct to extend principles of the senior managers’ regime to his staff all the way up to the governor.

But, what are we to do with the irresponsibility and ethical drift of bank regulators? I refer to those who have abused and manipulated credit markets, by imposing and keeping in place credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks. To thereby allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to those perceived as safe, than when lending to those perceived as risky, is both highly irresponsible and highly unethical.

It is highly irresponsible because it completely distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. That affects negatively the opportunities for our young and unborn to find decent employments.

And it is highly unethical because it favors those already favored by the banks, and discriminates additionally against the access to bank credit of those already discriminated by the banks. And that, by killing opportunities, is a first class inequality driver.

Mark Carney, you are the Chair of the Financial Stability Board, and therefore you share in the responsibility for the above, tell us, what do you suggest we do with you?

@PerKurowski

Nowadays, in banking, more important than the “Know your client” is the “Know your equity requirements”

Sir, it used to be that, beside general cost control, negotiating with the client was all a bank did to look for an acceptable return on its equity. Those were pre-Basel Committee days when any bank asset generated the same equity requirement.

Today the most important return on equity maximizing tool is the equity minimizing game. Today, more important than the “know your clients”, is the “know your equity requirements”.

And that is tragic. When we read Caroline Binham and Martin Arnold reporting on February 25 “Big banks face fresh capital clampdown” our heart goes out to all those legitimate credit aspirations of borrowers, which will be turned down, only because these generate for the bank higher equity requirements than other operations.

And Sir, the most amazing thing with it all, is that regulators are not even aware of how much their credit-risk weighted equity requirements distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

The regulators, who foolishly gave in to bank-children’s equity pleas, must as responsible parents now help them out.

Sir, Tom Braithwaite and Martin Arnold write: “Together with regulatory and investor pressure for higher returns, universal banks have lost their luster around the world”, “Regulators test the universal banking model”, January 16.

Of course the minimum minimorum equity banks were required to hold against some assets, 1.6 percent of the AAArisktocracy, and even zero in the case of “infallible” sovereigns, served as a potent growth hormone for the too big to fail banks. No doubt about it.

But, the problem is not that imposing, for instance an 8 percent equity requirement against all assets, would fatally wound big banks, or in this case the universal banking model. The real problem is that the journey from here to there would be extremely difficult. But since it really was the regulator, the supposedly responsible parent, who so foolishly gave in to what the children, the banks screamingly wanted, it really should be the regulator who now must assume his responsibilities to help the banks, the children, to adapt to the new much firmer rules of the house.

If only enough of the QE’s had been invested in bank equity, to make up completely for the equity shortfall caused by new requirements, central banks would probably now be reselling those shares to an avid market. That because, for a bank’s shareholders, it is also the journey from here to there that most frightens them. To have less risky bank shares producing lower returns is no problem whatsoever for any normal shareholder.

To sell such bank equity assistance scheme, could indeed be politically nightmarish… but if we want to put some decent order back in the system, in order to avoid our kids and grandchildren becoming a lost generation,  someone has to do it.

FT, what about at least daring to talk about it?

Why do so many care so much more about the risks banks should avoid, than about the risks they should take?

Sir, Martin Arnold in reference to Mark Carney’s, the head of the Financial Stability Board proposal for systemically important banks to hold more equity writes “Carney’s ‘too big to fail’ buffer represents clear progress despite doubt”, December 9.

And therein Arnold describes the proposed total-loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) to be worth between a fifth and a quarter of risk-weighted assets.

That could mean that a bank would need to hold 25 percent in loss absorbing capacity against assets risk-weighted 100%, like loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs, while at the same time only be required to hold between 0 and 5 percent of that same sort of TLAC back up, against assets risk-weighted 0 to 20 percent, like the infallible sovereigns and the AAAristocracy.

Does Arnold really think that increased distortion in the allocation of bank credit signifies any sort of progress? He’s got to be joking... or he signs up wholeheartedly on the après nous le deluge that spoils the future of our children.

Arnold also concludes in that “it is only when the next financial crisis hits that we will find out whether Carney really has consigned taxpayer bailouts of banks to history books.” Is he aware that the taxpayers who are most going to pay for the current crisis will be our children and not we the parents... and they will have to pay those taxes mostly for nothing?

Regulators frightened by innocuous credit risks are concerned with banks worrying about dealing with money launderers.

Sir, Martin Arnold reports on “growing concern among regulators and politicians about increased risk aversion by banks, which have reacted to a regulatory crackdown and a string of big fines for misconduct by severing links with riskier clients”, “Financial task force warns on banks’ approach to de-risking”, November 14.

Sounds like a cruel joke. Regulators who demonstrate huge risk-adverseness based solely on credit risk perceptions, are now expressing concerns with that banks might be to risk adverse when dealings with clients who could fit the profile of money launderers and terrorist financiers.

How long have our economies got left with our banks having been injected with the venom of cowardice?

Sir, Martin Arnold and Tom Braithwaite report “HSBC’s warns of risk-aversion” August 5.

Of course you know very well that I hold that excessive risk aversion is what most threatens our economies but, to read of banker like HSBC’s Douglas Flint expressing concerns about “a growing danger of disproportionate risk aversion creeping into decision making of our business”, without mentioning the largest source of risk aversion for banks, the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is maddening.

The disproportionate risk aversion of bank regulators, have banks now earning much higher expected risk adjusted returns on their equity on assets perceived as safe, which they can leverage much more, than on assets perceived as risky. And that has injected into our banks the venom of cowardice…

How long our economies can be sustained without medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs or start-ups having fair access to bank credit is hard to say, but one thing is really sure, if that risk aversion persists, our economies will go down down down.

Douglas Flint, as a banker might very well be doing his fair share of dressing up what is risky as more safe but, as a citizen, as a father, possibly even as a grandfather, and as someone who should understand the meaning of risk taking, he should be ashamed of himself. What is in it for our descendants if our generation refuses to take its proportionate and necessary share of risks required for moving the world forward?

And that, of course, goes also for many of you in FT too.

The awful truth is that risk weighted capital requirements for banks, are robbing our young of their horizons.