Way too many have kept busier defeating Brexit than saving Britain, come what may.

Sir, Philip Stafford writes “City executives describe the EU’s no-deal plans as a ‘nakedly political’ grab for London’s business” “Tail risk” April 9.

Alex Barker in “Barnier vs the Brits” FT already in November 2011, wrote about the fears of Sir Mervin King held about that some Brussels reforms would reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals. 

Specifically Barker mentioned: “Underlying the alarm in London is a more visceral fear: that Mr Barnier’s backers on the mainland are using this regulatory marathon to sap London’s strength as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre.”

And that was when Michel Barnier was only the “European internal market commissioner – a perch giving him oversight of the continent’s financial industry. Arguably, no European Union job is of more consequence for the UK.”

Well yes, there was. Now Michel Barnier, since December 2016, is the European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union, a job with even more consequence for the UK.

Given the previous rough relationship between Britain and Monsieur Barnier, one could have made a very well argued case that his appointment served no one well. And I am sure many EU nations would have understood that.

As a friend of Britain, I have one way or other argued the previous on several occasions, but with no luck. I believe that is because way too many were kept too interested in just defeating Brexit and so, to try for a better Brexit, did not fit their plans.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-michel-barnier-really-sure-about.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/european-citizens-must-solve-brexit.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/should-not-mr-michel-barnier-negotiator.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/04/what-kind-of-tariffs-is-protectionist.html

@PerKurowski

Since the risks regulated for are not the right risks, meeting risk weighted bank capital requirements means little

Sir, Philip Stafford reports “Reforms put in place by the Group of 20 leading nations have successfully tackled the most pressing issues that contributed to the crisis, according to the annual report from the Financial Stability Board, an international group of policymakers and regulators.” “Financial reforms: Shadow banking tamed, argues global watchdog” July 4.

Nonsense! If all evidences are duly reviewed, what most caused the crisis was the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. These allowed banks to leverage immensely, and thereby earn very high expected risk adjusted returns on their equity, with what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, like financing houses, sovereigns like Greece or the AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector.

The regulators regulated as if they were bankers. As regulators they should look at the risk that the risks are not adequately perceived or managed, and at the possibility of unexpected events. 

And that stupid risk weighting has not been eliminated because of the introduction of a non-risk based leverage ratio; on the contrary as that LR pushes up the capital floor, it might squeeze even more those affected by the roof set by the risk-weighted portion.

And regulators have also introduced additional sources of distortions like the liquidity requirements, which also are based on simplifications about what is liquid and what not. 

Their test of the stresses a la mode, or the elaboration of wills that might affect the living, could also signify new sources of systemic risks.

No the regulators have done a lousy job, primarily because they all circled their wagons around the mistakes they committed.

And if they go on doing what their mutual admiration club’s groupthink tells them to do, let’s hope the shadow banking sector goes underground, so that regulators don’t get their dirty nannying fingers around it too.

PS. No wonder FSB's "safer", "simpler" and "fairer" financial system video, has the comments disabled.

PS. I need a co-author that writes well and knows something about banks and finance, to help me write a book based on more than 2.500 letters ignored by FT

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier to parade down European avenues wearing a cone of shame.

Sir, I refer to Alex Barker’s and Phillip Stafford’s “Six ways Europe’s financial sector is meant to mend its ways” April 16.

I am not impressed. Because in Europe, the regulators still allows a bank to hold much less capital (equity) if it lends to “the infallible” meaning sovereigns, real estate or AAAristocracy, than when lending to the “risky” meaning medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups.

And so in Europe, regulators seem yet not have been able to understand this allows banks to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”.

And so in Europe, regulators still distort the allocation of credit to the real economy; that distortion that created the crisis, too much lending to Greece, real estate in Spain, AAA rated securities; that distortion that causes too little lending, in competitive terms, to those who could create the next generation of decent European jobs. 

And so, as I see it, Europe has not even started to mend its ways

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier and his Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board colleagues to parade down European avenues wearing dunce caps – meaning cones of shame.

What would the Basel capital requirements have been for a bank to finance Columbus’ voyage to the Americas?

Sir, Ralph Atkins, Philip Stafford and Brooke Masters’ in their analysis of regulations titled “Collateral damage”, October 25, mention about “growing fears that the very actions meant to build stability into the financial system are doing the opposite.” 

Of course, but that should be old news. Have they not looked at all bank assets which created this crisis? These were all perceived as safe, “The Infallible”, and for which banks were given extraordinary incentives to hold, by means of very low capital requirements. The frantic and frankly stupid efforts by regulators to keep the bankers away from “The Risky” led to a dangerous overpopulation of some safe-havens. 

When are regulators going to wake up to the reality that there is nothing like independent safe assets, as most of their safety depends on the existence of a safe economy? What they need to understand is that in order for some assets to become and remain safe, risky assets need also to be financed. 

By the way, since the article refers a lot to IMF, as I have written to you before, I am very skeptical about IMF’s analysis of safe assets. In their “Report on the Global Financial Stability 2012” they listed a total of 74.4 trillion U.S. dollars: 33.2 (45%) in sovereign bonds AAA / AA 5 (7%) in sovereign bonds A / BBB, 16.2 (21%) in securities with special guarantees; 8.2 (11%) in corporate bonds rated investment grade, 3.4 (5%) in other governmental or supranational debt, and 8.4 (11%) in gold. 

Let me assure you that though, for instance, holding both sovereign bonds and gold can be a very safe and risk-adverse strategy, since if something goes seriously wrong you might at least be left with something, 30 years US bonds yielding 3 percent, and gold at $1.715 per ounce, cannot simultaneously both be real safe assets, no matter how much IMF suggests it.

The article is also illustrated with a painting depicting Columbus voyage to the America’s, financed by Queen Isabella and who supposedly pawned her jewelry for that purpose. If Queen Isabella had been a bank, what would you think would be the capital requirements for that loan? Would America have been discovered during a regulatory reign of a risk-adverse Basel Committee? 

Instead, Spanish banks financed "safe" real estate... against very little capital.