September 2008 when the crisis bomb exploded is not as important as the dates when the bomb was planted

Sir, Philip Stephens writes: “The process set in train by the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers has produced two big losers — liberal democracy and open international borders. Historians will look back on the crisis of 2008 as the moment the world’s most powerful nations surrendered international leadership, and globalisation went into reverse”. “Populism is the true legacy of the crisis”, August 31.

I agree with most of what Stephens writes, especially on how “central bankers and regulators, politicians and economists, have shrugged off responsibility” for the crisis. What I do take exception of is for the date of the collapse since much more important than when a bomb detonates, is when the bomb is planted. In this respect three dates come to mind. 

1988 when regulators announced: “With our risk weighted capital requirements for banks we will make our bank system much safer” and a hopeful world, who wanted to believe such things possible, naively fell for the Basel Committee’s populism.

April 28, 2004, when the SEC partially delegated their authority over US investment banks, like Lehman Brothers, to the Basel Committee. 

June 2004, when with Basel II, the regulators put their initially mostly in favor of the sovereign distortions on steroids, like for instance allowing banks to leverage a mind-blowing 62.5 times with assets that managed to acquire from human fallible credit rating agencies an AAA to AA rating. And EU authorities decided that all EU nations, like Greece should, in an expression of solidarity be awarded a 0% risk weight.

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

Sir, Janan Ganesh writes: “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",” “Political distemper preceded the financial crisis” August 30.

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.

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

Don’t help bank regulators get away from being held accountable for their mistakes by politicizing the issue.

Sir, Gillian Tett commenting on Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner comments on the 10-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse writes:“Critics on the right complain that markets have been hopelessly distorted by government meddling” “European banks still have post-crisis repairs to do” July 20.

Frankly, you do not have to be from “the right” to “complain that markets have been hopelessly distorted by government meddling”

In 1988 bank regulators, based the risk weighted capital requirements for banks they were introducing on the nonsense that what was perceived as risky was more dangerous to our bank system than what was perceived as safe. With that they dangerously distorted the allocation of credit to the economy… and caused the crisis.

Would the Lehman Brothers have suffered the same collapse had not the SEC authorized it in 2004 to follow Basel II rules, and it could therefore (just like the European banks) leverage 62.5 times with securities backed with subprime mortgages, if these counted with an AAA to AA rating issued by human fallible credit rating agencies. Of course no!

But here we are a decade later and this major flaw of current bank regulations is not even discussed. What especially excessive exposures to something perceived decreed or concocted as safe are banks in Europe, America and elsewhere building up only because of especially low capital requirements, and which will guarantee, sooner or later, especially large crises? That should be the concern.

But, come to think of it, it could be that Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and Gillian Tett, still believe in the story the Basel Committee told them, perhaps because they want so much to believe that a fairy could make banks safe and still be able to serve the economy. 

@PerKurowski

Elizabeth Warren, as a member of United States Senate Committee on Banking, might not perform entirely her own duties

Sir, Barney Jopson reports that Senator Elizabeth Warren is requesting the replacement of Mary Jo White as Chair of the Security and Exchange Commission “Warren wants SEC head fired for ‘undermining’ administration” October 15.

I have no opinion on how Mary Jo White has been performing her duties at the SEC but, the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, of which Ms Warren is a standing member, is lacking carrying out in its own responsibilities.

I hold that since to this date I have not seen any effort on part of that committee to ascertain if, and if so how much, the risk weighted capital requirements distort the allocation of bank credit.

This is not a minor issue. For a starter it could ask bank regulators for a full explanation of the risk weights of 0% when financing the sovereign (the King), 20% the AAArisktocracy, 35% housing and 100% “We the People” like SMEs and entrepreneurs, those with the best chances of generating the future jobs our grandchildren need. That regulatory credit risk aversion, layered on top of whatever risk aversion the bankers’ themselves can harbor, sounds as anathema as can be to the whole notion of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Besides, the discrimination in access to bank credit that those risk weights produce, violates directly the spirit of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B). In that respect the committee should also ask the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, what it is doing about this.

With regulations, to favor banks lending to the “safer” past and present, over lending to the “riskier” future, is a clear violation of that holy social inter-generational bond that Edmund Burke spoke about.

To top it up, those risk weighted capital requirements do not serve one iota for making the banking system safer. All major bank crises result either from unexpected events or from excessive exposures to something erroneously perceived as safe, never ever because of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as risky.

PS. Elizabeth Warren, in as much as she classifies herself as a progressive, could also be interested in how these regulations decree inequality.

@PerKurowski ©

Regulators tell banks “Occupy what’s safe”; and so expel widows, orphans and pension funds, to handle what’s risky

Sir, Brooke Masters reports on how the Security Exchange Commission is making sure that private equity industry duly manages conflicts of interest and treats its clients fairly. “SEC enforcers must keep bearing down on private equity” August 27.

But Masters also writes: “Historically, PE clients have been highly sophisticated. So they are either well placed to decipher complex investment contracts or rich enough not to quibble about extra fees. But that is changing. Public pension funds are shifting more and more of their money into private equity as they chase higher yields. Pension fund managers are far less experienced with the sector.”

Why did this happen? When regulators, with their risk weighted capital requirements told banks they could leverage more, and therefore obtain higher risk-adjusted returns on equity with assets perceived as safe than with assets perceived as risky, they made banks occupy that area in which, without leverage, widows, orphans and pension funds used to dwell.

So see what they done. By trying to make banks safer they clearly made life for widows, orphans and pension funds much riskier. That is what happens when regulators regulate with no concern about the impact their regulations will have.

And the saddest part of it all is that it is all for nothing. Major bank crisis are never the result of excessive exposures to what is perceived as risky, but always the result of unexpected events or excessive leveraged exposures to what was ex ante perceived as safe, but that ex post turned out not to be.

PS. For the sake of our children and future pensioners, I pray we can reverse this, and that there are still some bankers out there who know how to be bankers, and not only how to be equity minimizers. 

@PerKurowski ©

Has the SEC really shown such merits that Patrick Jenkins has to stand up in their defense against bullies?

Sir, Patrick Jenkins, in “SEC should stand up to asset management bullies on liquidity risk” of March 15, writes that some “even accuse the SEC of attacking the very essence of American free markets”

Those “bullies” are right! Risk weighted capital requirements is something totally incompatible with free markets, whether in America, Europe or anywhere else.

And let us not forget that the main reason the investment banks supervised by the SEC suffered more than the commercial banks supervised by the Fed and FDIC, was that in April 2004, the SEC gave in to the Basel Committees' capital requirements.

That some “blame the SEC’s poor regulation…for the risk that exists in the system”, is not something outlandish.

In November 1999 a began an Op-Ed titled “About the SEC, the human factor, and laughing” with: “A couple of days ago, SEC reported that their pension fund had also been the victim of a fraudulent stock-managing firm, and that they had lost a lot of money”. And I ended it with: “the possible Big Bang that scares me the most is the one that could happen the day…regulators… playing Gods, manage to introduce a systemic error in the financial system, and which will cause its collapse.

I have no idea why Patrick Jenkins goes out defending the SEC with his “415 pages of often technocratic proposals, the regulator suggest some sensible mechanisms to mitigate the fast-growing risks in the fast-growing asset management industry.”

Any regulators who have to write 415 pages to propose some partial solution, is only working for himself and for friendly regulation consultants. I am sure those 415 pages, which I have not read, contain all type of dangerous distortion and gaming possibilities.

@PerKurowski ©

Without the endorsement by regulators, banks would never have leveraged their equity 60 times to 1 with any asset.

Sir, Gary Silverman writes: “exempting the derivatives known as credit default swaps from more rigorous federal regulation…[was] one of the biggest mistake leading to the financial crisis”, “Why it is wrong to forget Lehman’s fall” September 20.

That is not so. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will explain prime cause of the financial crisis, namely the capital requirements for banks, and this by using the examples of Lehman Brothers, AIG and Greece.

The regulators in June 2004, with Basel II, decided that against AAA rated private sector assets, and against any sovereign rated as Greece was until November 2009, banks needed to hold only 1.6 percent in capital, meaning banks could leverage their equity with those assets over 60 times to 1. In comparison, when holding “risky” assets like loans to entrepreneurs and SMEs, banks were only allowed to leverage 12 times to 1. 

On April 28, 2004 the SEC decided that what was good for the Basel Committee was good enough for them, and so allowed Lehman to leverage over 60 times to 1 with AAA rated securities guaranteed with mortgages to the subprime sector… Since Europe were allowing their banks to do the same… the demand for these AAA securities became so huge that it overpowered all the quality controls in their manufacturing and packaging process… and Bang!

If AAA rated AIG guaranteed an asset, banks could also dramatically reduce the capital they needed to hold against that assets, and this overwhelmed AIG’s capacity to resist selling “very profitable” loan default guarantees… and Bang!

And Greece was of coursed offered loans in such amounts, and in such generous terms, so that its governments could not resist the temptations… and Bang!

As can be seen the above has nothing to do with deregulation, or with exempting anything from rigorous federal regulation, and all to do with imposing extremely bad and distorting regulations. On their own, and without the direct endorsement of regulators, banks would never ever have dreamt of leveraging their equity 60 times or more, with any asset… no matter how safe it looked.

If we are not going to spell out the real reasons why Lehman Brothers fell, then we better all forget Lehman’s fall.

PS. Here are 7 questions US Congressmen and Governors should ask bank regulators.

@PerKurowski

Regulators who darkened the banks in the sun, should not be allowed to shine light on those in the shadows

Sir, I refer to your “Regulators shine a light on the banking shadows” October 15. Therein your argue: “FSB’s rules on short-term securities lending are a sensible start” since “The shadow banking system was at the heart of the financial crisis” and then you refer to “the meltdowns of Lehman Brothers and AIG”

Quite a distorted view I would say… both Lehman Brothers and AIG troubles had little to do with the shadows and most to do with the regulations that applied to the banks in the sun.

On April 28, 2004, two months before Basel II was formally approved, SEC decided that " for Broker-Dealers that are Part of Consolidated Supervised Facilities and Supervised Investment Bank Holding Companies… computations of allowable capital and risk allowances (or other capital assessment) consistent with the Basel Standards" should apply.

And that meant that, for instance Lehman Brothers, would be able to leverage its equity 62.5 times to 1 when investing in AAA rated securities, such as those that detonated the disaster.

And the same Basel Standards implied that, if a company like AIG, proud bearer of an AAA rating, puts its name to a debt instrument, banks would be able to leverage these investments 62.5 times to 1… and so of course everyone wanted to hire AIG’s AAA rating… at a reasonable price.

And, if someone does not understand the temptations a 62.5 to 1 leverage implies for a financial company, he knows nothing about finance and less about regulations. As a reference, hedge funds, those animals of speculation, these can rarely leverage their equity more than 10 to 1.

Sir, I am not at all sure that current regulators, those who so much helped to darken the prospects of our banks, should even be allowed to try to shine a light on the banks in the shadows… they done enough damage as is.

May I here remind you of some minimum terms we need to lay down before we allow regulators to regulate any banks?

What a waste of a good $17bn fine. Oh, if only it had been collected in voting shares of BofA.

Sir, Kara Scanell and Camilla Hall report that “BofA settles for record $17bn claim” August 22, and I cannot but reflect on what a waste of a good fine that is.

The fine is to be paid by BofA in cash and in consumer relief, all payments of course going against BofA’s capital account… in these days bank capital is already so scarce because bank regulators allowed it to become so scarce.

If we multiply be the 20 times leverage implied by the 5% leverage ratio US regulators have announced, those $17bn as capital could have supported $340bn in loans. Oh if only that fine had been collected in voting shares of BofA at current market valuations.

PS. FT reporters... dare to ask The Question!

Before sending watchdogs into the shadows, should we not get better ones for banks in the light?

Sir I refer to Sam Fleming and Patrick Jenkins reporting Paul Tucker saying “it would be ‘absolutely disastrous’ if the economic fragility of banks was recreated outside the mainstream banking sector”, “Watchdogs urged to look in the shadows”, October 18.

I do not agree. What we should really be scared of are for our truly bad watchdogs now also going for the shadows, after having messed up so much the banks in the light. Just as an example, in the shadows, no one would even dream of leveraging 30 to 50 times, like supervised banks were allowed to do, and did.

Sir, let me ask you one question, please!

If you were a regulator, what would you think poses the greatest dangers for us with the banks, the possibility of their excessive exposure to something rated AAA to AA and which then, ex post, turns out to be risky, or their “excessive” exposure to something rated below BB- ad which would, ex post, turns out to be even more risky than that?

I dare venture you would answer the first, since you would know there would be very few or no "excessive exposures" at all to anything rated BB-. And, if so, the banks would have collected a lot of risk premiums too... which is also capital (equity).

But the risk-weights of our current watchdogs are 20% for the first and 150% for the latter, meaning banks need, according to Basel II, only to hold 1.6% in capital against the first but 12% against the latter, which means banks are allowed to leverage 62.5 to 1 with AAA to AAs but only 8 to 1 with something rated below BB-. Explain that!

You see, the Basel Committee's risk weights measure the risks for the banks of their assets and borrowers, but not the bank risks for us. You see, our and bank regulators’ problems with banks, have absolutely nothing to do with banks and bankers getting it right, and absolutely all to do with banks and bankers getting it wrong!

Before sending watchdogs into the shadows, should we not get better ones for banks in the light?

Too careful is also “carelessly”

Sir, Gideon Rachman writes “It is a standard, self-pitying complaint in Brussels that the crisis in the eurozone was triggered by the collapse of a US investment bank, Lehman Brothers”, “America cannot live so carelessly forever”, October 8.

Yes that is the superficial fact, but the real truth is that what caused both Lehman Brothers, the eurozone and the US to have a financial crisis, were bank regulations coming from the Basel Committee. For instance, on April 28, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which supervised Lehman Brothers, effectively delegated its role to the Basel Committee.

And by the way, the crisis was not caused by being too careless, on the contrary by being too careful. It was capital requirements for banks which were so much lower for what was perceived as “absolutely safe” than for what was perceived as “risky”, which caused that extraordinary dangerous large level of bank exposures, backed with minimal capital, to AAA rated securities, to banks of Iceland, to real estate in Spain, and to sovereigns like Greece.

Fabrice Tourre has been duly scalped, but where is the SEC’s mea culpa?

Sir, I have no doubt whatsoever that the prime responsible for the current financial mess were dumb bank regulators. That’s is why I dislike so much reading when Tracy Alloway and Kara Scanell report “SEC elated after claiming Tourre’s scalp.” August 3.

The whole story can either begin with the little guy, the mortgage underwriter underwriting bad mortgages to the subprime sector; and those bad ingredients were then sold by underwriter bosses to security packagers, who packaged these bad mortgages into very bad subprime sausages; but who were are able to turn these into valuable delicacies, only because of the high credit ratings these received from human fallible credit rating agents. And then the story could end with those selling the sausages to the investors, and some of them, like Goldman Sachs, even taking bets on that these would make their buyers puke. And all involved in the bad sausage chain made huge profits… and should all be ashamed, some more than others.

Or the story can begin with bank regulators, the Basel Committee, who with its Basel II of June 2004 authorized banks to hold AAA rated sausages on their books against only 1.6 percent in capital (equity), which meant they authorized banks to leverage their capital a mindboggling 62.5 to 1 times with these sausages; and who with this created the irresistible profit motivations that induced all humans previously mentioned to break all the rules.

Fabrice Tourre’s own word “More and more leverage in the system, the whole building is about to collapse any time now” says it all. Those directly responsible for that leverage were the bank regulators. Without the explicit blessing of regulations which allowed it, the system would never ever have been able to leverage as much. And the SEC was all in agreement with is, as can be read in its Open Meeting records of April 28, 2004.

Yes, Fabrice Tourre and all others involved in the subprime sausage chain are guilty and should be held responsible. But, if we allow regulators to get away, feeling elated, without even a mea culpa, then we truly have not learned the lessons we most need to learn from this crisis.

Let us then hope Mary Jo White really knows how to discriminate between what is right and what is wrong.

Sir, Kara Scannell and Shannon Bond quote David Keller saying about Mary Jo White, recently nominated by Obama to the Securities and Exchange Commission that “She is driven by her sense of what’s right”, "White nominated to lead Wall St watchdog” January 25.

I just hope then that Mary Jo White understands that regulatory discrimination in favor of “The Infallible” those already favored by markets and banks, and against “The Risky” those already discriminated against by markets and banks is, besides stupid, utterly wrong, I would even say truly odious.

I say this because on April 28, 2004, the SEC had no idea about what it was doing.

Do they really trust credit rating agencies less?

Sir, Claire Jones and Robin Harding quote Frederic Mishkin of the Fed saying on August 7, 2007 “The point of the subprime market is just that we now trust the credit rating agencies less,” said Frederic Mishkin. “Fed red-faced as notes reveal officials failed to grasp dangers of 2007” January 19. 

Is Mishkin really sure about that? Last time I looked the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, on top of the capital requirements for banks based on perceived risks, and as perceived fundamentally by credit rating agencies, and which remain firmly entrenched, are now adding a layer of liquidity requirements also based on perceived risks, and also as fundamentally perceived by credit rating agencies.

When are our utterly naïve regulators going to wake up to the fact that in banking it is what is perceived as safe which can cause most risk since what is perceived as risky takes perfectly care of itself?

Regulators´ occurrences often represent the most dangerous quicksand

I fully agree with John Gapper when he finds not “unreasonable” the proposal by Mary Chapiro, the SEC Chairman, that money market funds would have to, “either become more like investments funds by allowing their net asset value to float, or more like banks by raising a buffer capital”, “Don´t leave the financial system on quicksand” August 30. 

That said, with respect of that “buffer capital” I hope he, and Ms Chapiro, mean one same capital requirement for any type of assets. This because since most investors are currently convinced their buck is already broken, or will be broken, their main interest is it becoming broken as little as possible. 

And, as we should know by now, nothing guarantees a super-large breakage of the buck more, than when besserwisser regulators, full of hubris, believe themselves to be the risk managers of the world, and start interfering by mean of risk-weights, with the markets´ own risk assessments. 

And, so, when regulating the money market funds (and the banks) please never forget that regulatory occurrences can also often represent the most dangerous quicksand.

Sunshine rules might signify more darkness

Sir, those “Sunshine rules” you refer to August 23, namely the Sec ordering US-listed companies to disclose the payments they make to the host governments, are absolutely great news… for those countries where civil society is strong enough to matter... and governments have at least the intention of listening to it.

But, in those countries where civil society is truly weak, something which so often is the case of countries suffering the curse of abundant natural resources, those sunshine rules might only mean more darkness, as they would tend to exclude the sort of more reasonable or least unethical extractive industry corporations from participating, leaving the field open to the truly unreasonable and least ethical. 

Why not invest instead all these efforts in supporting the development of strong “independent” civil societies which can demand better results where it really matters, not in the corporate reports of companies listed in the stock-exchanges of developed countries, or in an annual report of a well intention NGO, but on their own oil-fields and mines? 

Now if the SEC would follow up this by approving a list of countries where a reasonable active participation of civil society existed, and in which therefore these sunshine rules would apply, and a list of those countries where they are impossible to apply, that could be more helpful, not only for us oil cursed citizens, but even for their own listed natural resource companies. 

PS. One of the main promoters of “sunshine”, which is good, is the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and the Dodd-Frank Act even makes a direct reference to EITI. 

Nonetheless, EITI, as its second principle states: “We affirm that management of natural resource wealth for the benefit of a country’s citizens is in the domain of sovereign governments to be exercised in the interests of their national development.”, and that to me, as an oil-cursed citizen, is a totally unacceptable principle. 

I believe that the individual citizens will always, on average, make a better use of any natural resource blessings, than their government managing all of these… and using all of these so as to guarantee themselves some truly submissive citizens.

“Careful, take cover, run for the shadows!”

Sir, Gillian Tett in “Why they´re happy in the valley of the shadow banks” June 28 worries because “notwithstanding the fact that the financial crisis largely started in the non-bank sector, or shadow bank world, thus far at least, western regulators have focused most of the reform efforts on the regulated banks”. Where does she get that first part from? And why would she assume that the shadow world behaves worse than the formal regulated one? For instance, there are no regulations on hedge funds, but rarely do you see any of them being leveraged more than 10 to 1, but you sure found regulated banks with a duly authorized leverage of over 50 to 1. Let me be frank, with bank regulators like the current, the only reason why I would place my money in regulated banks, is not because of the regulations, it is for the protections that might anyhow be present… in other words a 110% moral hazard risk.

Right now, even after the recently increased capital requirement of 9 percent to be applied to global systemic important financial institutions, these might still leverage 55 to 1 when lending or investing in what carries a risk-weight of 20%, the same risk-weight that applied for triple-A rated securities collateralized with mortgages to the subprime sector, for lending to Icelandic banks, or for lending to Greece. Sincerely, observing that, any advisor could have all the right to shout out “Careful, take cover, run for the shadows”

Should there be an automatic sentence of the co-responsible?

Sir John Gapper is right when describing the sentencing of Bernard Madoff as “both necessary and rare” July 2. That said justice was not totally served. Had there not been a SEC you can be sure that the people who lost their money with Madoff might have lost even more money, in many other ways, but would certainly not have lost that same way with Madoff. Therefore perhaps all regulators involved should receive an automatic sentence for co-responsibility. One percent? One and a half years?

Could there be value to be unlocked in the one-year ownership of shares clause?

Sir you are so right in that the recent minimalistic step taken by the SEC to allow the true owners, the shareholders, to name who should be at the Board of their companies was “A much needed victory”, May 22.

What I cannot comprehend though is how the SEC can get away with the one year of ownership criteria... how on earth does one year of ownership change ownership? Could there now be an opportunity to sell the shares but keep them in your name, so as to offer the one year ownership on record? I mean in this severe crisis one has to look under every stone for any value to be unlocked.