The doom loop between government and banks was created by regulators.

Sir, I refer to Martin Arnold’s “Soaring public debt poised to heap pressure on eurozone, ECB warns” May 27

For the risk weighted bank capital requirements, all Eurozone sovereigns’ debts have been assigned a 0% risk weight, and this even though none of these can print euros on their own. Would there be a “doom loop” between governments and banks if banks needed to hold as much capital when lending to governments as they must hold when lending to entrepreneurs? Of course not!

In a speech titled “Regulatory and Supervisory Reform of EU Financial Institutions – What Next?” given at the Financial Stability and Integration Conference, in May 2011 Sharon Bowles, the then European Parliament’s Chair Economic and Monetary Affairs opined:

“I have frequently raised the effect of zero risk weighting for sovereign bonds within the Eurozone, and its contribution to removing market discipline by giving lower spreads than there should have been. It also created perverse incentives during the crisis.”

In March 2015 the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report on the regulatory treatment of sovereign exposures. In the foreword we read:

"The report argues that, from a macro-prudential point of view, the current regulatory framework may have led to excessive investment by financial institutions in government debt. 

The report recognises the difficulty in reforming the existing framework without generating potential instability in sovereign debt markets. 

I trust that the report will help to foster a discussion which, in my view, is long overdue.

Mario Draghi, ESRB Chair"

Six years later, and now even more “long overdue”

Does Christine Lagarde really know about the zero risk weighting of eurozone sovereigns bomb?

Sir, Anne-Sylvaine Chassany writes how Christine Lagarde was interrogated in 2016 about an incident while she was the finance minister in France, related to a vital memo she missed, and which led to herfailing in “preventing an allegedly fraudulent €403m state payout”. “Although spared prison and a fine, she was found guilty of negligence, though the court decided the conviction would not constitute a criminal record” “Lagarde’s lesson in how to deal with imposter syndrome” July 10.

That must have been a very uncomfortable experience for Ms. Lagarde. And in this respect I wonder if she has for instance read what Sharon Bowles the then European Parliament’s Chair Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee opined in 2011?

In a speech titled “Regulatory and Supervisory Reform of EU Financial Institutions – What Next?” given at the Financial Stability and Integration Conference, 2 May 2011 Bowles said: 

“I have frequently raised the effect of zero risk weighting for sovereign bonds within the Eurozone, and its contribution to removing market discipline by giving lower spreads than there should have been. It also created perverse incentives during the crisis.”

Sir, that was eight years ago… and Mario Draghi or anyone else did not defuse that bomb and so it is still ticking.

A zero risk weighting of any sovereign bond, for purposes of bank capital requirements anywhere is lunacy to me, as it de facto implies believing that government bureaucrats know better how to use bank credit they are not personally liable for, than for instance entrepreneurs. But, when it is assigned to sovereigns who take on debt denominated in a currency that is not their domestic printable one, as is the case in the eurozone, then it goes way beyond lunacy.

Anne-Sylvaine Chassany writes that againChristine Lagarde faces a chorus of doubters. Ms Lagarde is not a monetary policy specialist or an economist by training, skills which, in a perfect world, ought to be part of the job description to succeed Mario Draghi at the helm of the European Central Bank.

That is of little concern to me; there should be more than enough monetary policy specialist or economists and, seeing what many of them have been up to lately, perhaps even too many. 

But does Ms Lagarde really know what she is getting into? Does she really think she can help defuse that zero risk weighting for eurozone sovereign bonds bomb that, if it explodes, will take down the euro, and perhaps the European Union with it?

Someone should ask her that. That is many times more important than the vital memo she missed seeing. Why not the Financial Times?

But then again would anyone really be able to defuse that bomb?

PS. Perhaps the title of this should be "Does Christine Lagarde know she might be on a suicide mission?

@PerKurowski

The still ticking 0% Risk Weight Sovereign Debt Privilege bomb awaits Mario Draghi’s successor at ECB

Sir, Martin Wolf, sort of implying Mario Draghi followed his recommendations, which of course could be true, holds that “Draghi did the right things, above all with his celebrated remark in July 2012 that ‘within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro’”. “Jens Weidmann casts a shadow over the ECB” June 11.

Did Draghi resolve that crisis for the better, or did he just postpone it for the worse?

That’s is not at all clear. In March 2015 the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a “Report on the regulatory treatment of sovereign exposures.” Let me quote from its foreword:

“The report argues that, from a macro-prudential point of view, the current regulatory framework may have led to excessive investment by financial institutions in government debt. 

The report recognizes the difficulty in reforming the existing framework without generating potential instability in sovereign debt markets. 

I trust that the report will help to foster a discussion that, in my view, is long overdue.” Signed Mario Draghi, ESRB Chair

The regulatory aspect that report most refers to is, for purposes of risk weighted capital requirements for banks (and insurance companies), the assignment of a 0% risk weight to all Eurozone sovereigns. 

Though the report states that: “Sovereign defaults… have occurred regularly throughout history, including for sovereign debt denominated and funded in domestic currency”, it does not put forward that all these eurozone sovereign debts are denominated in a currency that de facto is not a domestic printable one of any of these sovereigns.

Since Mario Draghi seems to have done little or nothing since then to diffuse this 0% Sovereign Debt Privilege bomb, which if it detonates could bring the euro down, and with it perhaps EU, this is the most important issue at hand. 

So when choosing a candidate to succeed Draghi as president of ECB the question that has to be made is whether that person is capable enough to handle that monstrous challenge. Who is? Jens Weidmann? I have no idea.

Sir, it would be interesting to hear what Martin Wolf would have to say to the new president of ECB about this. What would a “Do what it takes” imply in that case? 

PS. And when Greece was able to contract excessive debt precisely because its 0% risk weight should not the European Union have behaved with much more solidarity, instead of having Greece walk the plank alone?

PS. If I were one of those over 750 members of the European Parliament here are the questions I would make and, if these were not answered in simple understandable terms, I would resign, not wanting to be a part of a Banana Union.

PS. "The current regulatory framework may have led to excessive investment by financial institutions in government debt." Really?

PS. Is there a way to defuse that bomb? Perhaps but any which way you try presents risks. One way could be to allow all banks to continue to hold all eurozone sovereign debt they current posses, against a 0% risk weight, until these mature or are sold by the banks; and, in steps of 20% each year, bring the risk weight for any new sovereign debt they acquire up until it reaches 100%... or more daringly but perhaps more needed yet set the risk weight for any new sovereign debt acquired immediately to 100%, so as to allow the market to send its real messages. 

The same procedure could/should be applied all other bank assets that currently have a risk weight below 100%, like for instance residential mortgages.

Would it work? I don’t really know, a lot depends on how the market prices the regulatory changes for debt and bank capital . But getting rid of risk weighted bank capital requirements is something that must happen, urgently, for the financial markets to regain some sense of sanity.

PS. An alternative would be doing it in a Chilean style. Being very flexible with bank capital requirements, even accepting 0%, even having ECB do repos with banks non-performing loans: BUT NO dividends, NO buybacks and NO big bonuses, until banks have 10% capital against all assets, sovereign debts included.

PS. I just discovered that Sharon Bowles, MEP, 
Chair Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
 of the European Parliament, in a speech titled "Regulatory and Supervisory Reform of EU Financial Institutions – What Next?
 at the Financial Stability and Integration Conference,
 2 May 2011, said the following:

“I have frequently raised the effect of zero risk weighting for sovereign bonds within the Eurozone, and its contribution to removing market discipline by giving lower spreads than there should have been. It also created perverse incentives during the crisis.”

That is very clear warning that something is extremely wrong... and yet nothing was done about it.

PS. And in 2015 the European Commission also described the problem with the zero-risk weighted sovereign debts within the eurozone.

PS. https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/1998/11/burning-bridges-in-europe.html

PS. In Financial Times 2004: “How long before regulators realize the damage, they’re doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector? In some countries, access to credit for the private sector is all but gone, and the banks are up to the hilt in public credits”

The empowerment of the Bureaucracy Autocracy

“Assets for which bank capital requirements were nonexistent, were what had most political support: sovereign credits. A simple ‘leverage ratio’ discouraged holdings of low-return government securities” Paul Volcker

@PerKurowski

Auditing is important, but what causes a disaster, is more important than how it is being accounted.

Sir, “FT Big Read. Auditing in crisis: Setting flawed standards” of August 2, discusses, among other, the huge divergence of figures in the auditing of the value of derivative exposures of AIG and of Goldman Sachs, even though their auditor was the same, in this case PricewaterhouseCoopers. 

That it was “striking how little was verifiable, that there were few credible market prices, let alone transactions, to support the key valuations”, explains much of the divergence.

Sharon Bowles, former chair of the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee explains it with: “Accounts have always contained estimates; think of the provisions companies make against foreseeable future losses, but the un-anchoring of auditing from verifiable fact has become endemic.”

That “un-anchoring from verifiable facts” is not limited to auditing. 

Sir, for the umpteenth time, without absolutely no verifiable facts, regulators concocted their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, based on the quite infantile feeling that what was perceived risky must be more risky to the bank system than what was perceived safe. In fact what could have been verified, if only they had looked for it, was the opposite, namely that what’s perceived safe is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived risky.

With that the regulators assigned to AAA rated AIG, by only attaching its name to guarantee an asset, the power to reduce the capital requirements for investment banks in the US, and for all banks in Europe, to a meager 1.6%. That translated into an allowed 62.5 times leverage. Let me assure you Sir that without this the whole AIG and Goldman Sachs incident described would never have happened. 

As always, what causes the problems is much more important than how the problems are accounted for. Though of course I agree, sometimes bad-accounting could in itself be the direct cause of the problems. 

The article also refers to “the so-called efficient markets hypothesis… that now somewhat discredited theory”. Sir, no markets have any chance to be credited with performing efficiently with such kind of distortions. For instance how verifiable is it now that sovereign debt is as risk-free as markets would currently indicate, when statist regulators have assigned it a 0% risk free weight, and are thereby subsidizing it?

@PerKurowski

What´s banker´s bonuses got to do with it?

Sir, Sharon Bowles, the Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament writes: “We know from bitter experience that the size of bonuses induced overly risky behavior and the peddling of poorly understood products contributed significantly to the financial crisis”, “Bureaucrats are not behind bonus cap proposal”, March 7.

Wrong! Being able to extract some investor value, like an AAA rating, from something not at all that valuable, is a normal financial operation, which often provides benefits to all parties involved.

The problem this time was that the appetite for what detonated the crisis, the securities collateralized with mortgages to the subprime sector in the US, just went crazy, when suddenly banks were allowed, by their regulators, to hold these securities against only 1.6 percent in capital, only because they had an AAA credit rating, issued by some human fallible credit raters. An authorized mindboggling leverage of 62.5 to 1!

No one, except those receiving them of course, likes runaway or not merited bonuses. And perhaps governments should cap the tax-deductibility of bankers’ annual pay. But, to read, five years after the crisis detonated, bureaucrats believing that fixing banker´s bonuses problem should have a high priority that is truly saddening.

The EP should concentrate instead on eliminating how regulations favor so much bank lending to “The Infallible” and thereby discriminates against “The Risky”, and thereby creating huge distortions in the real economy, because that is what is really taking Europe down… and fast.

The EP should also ask itself whether is wise to keep on consulting with bank regulators which by any accounts should have been fired long ago. Hollywood would never be so dumb to allow someone who produced a Basel II flop, to go out and try Basel III, with the same scriptwriters

PS. To help EP better connect the dots let me remind it that when banks lent to Greece, they were also allowed to leverage 62.5 times to 1; and also that nothing perceived as “risky” has ever created a major banking problem, only Potemkin Infallible do that. Capisce?