Imposing on banks risk aversion more suitable to older than younger, regulators violated Edmund Burke’s holy intergenerational social contract

Vanessa Houlder when writing about Richard Thaler’s ‘nudge’ theory and how our hatred of losses affects risk taking mentions: “Investing in a portfolio tilted towards equities makes sense for the young, although — given that share prices can drop dramatically — the proportion should be reduced as people near retirement, according to Thaler.” “Be lazy, the first rule of investing” December 23.

Sir, that refers precisely to something on which I have written to you hundred of letters over the years.

Regulators, with their risk-weighted capital requirements, by allowing banks to hold less capital against what is perceived as “safe”, like mortgages, than against what is perceived as “risky”, like loans to entrepreneurs, they allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on what’s perceived safe than on what’s perceived risky.

With it regulators top up the natural risk aversion of bankers with their own one, and by there doom banks to primarily work in the interest of the older and against those of the young. That, phrased in Edmund Burke’s terms, is a shameful breach of the holy intergenerational social contract that should guide our lives. How our society has managed to turn a blind eye on this makes me, a grandfather, very disappointed and sad.

But all that risk aversion is also so totally useless. Major bank crisis never ever result from excessive exposures to what has ex ante been perceived as risky; but always because of unexpected events or excessive exposures to what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe but then turned out to be risky, like AAA rated securities backed by mortgages awarded to the subprime sector and loans to sovereigns like Greece.

PS. It would be great if Vanessa Houlder could ask Richard Thaler why he thinks regulators want banks to hold more capital against what perceived as risky is made innocous than against what is perceived as safe is therefore intrinsically more dangerous? My own explanation is that they mistook the ex ante perceived risk of bank assets for being the ex post risks for banks.

@PerKurowski

According to FT’s research, how much do minimum wages and absence of payroll taxes favour robots?

Sir, Vanessa Houlder writes: “When you book an Airbnb room in London, around a third of the $100 saving you make over the price of an average hotel room is due to tax advantages which favour Airbnb’s business model, according to research by the Financial Times” “Airbnb makes most of legal wiggle room to beat hotels” January 3.

Houlder goes on with: “Research from Morgan reported a higher than expected “cannibalisation of traditional hotels” over the past year, citing survey findings that 49 per cent of Airbnb users in the US, UK, France, and Germany had replaced a hotel stay with a stay booked through the online group.”

Indeed, since it is a human owner of an apartment eating up the opportunity from a human owner of a hotel room, it could be described as “cannibalization”. But, how should we describe when for instance a robot or a driverless car takes away a job opportunity from humans? If, for instance, that happens only because of minimum wages and absence of payroll taxes, is that more like human-offerings at the altar of automation and technology?

@PerKurowski

Do Gillian Tett and other really believe that ever-growing offshore cash piles, is cash stashed away under mattresses?

Sir, Gillian Tett writes: “overseas profit piles have swelled — to more than $2tn”; and from there she jumps to: “in the real world introducing a repatriation deal — even at a mere 10 per cent — would almost certainly be better than the dismal status quo: a world of ever-growing offshore cash piles, transatlantic tax battles and lousy infrastructure does not suit anybody.” “The clampdown on tax inversions is only a start” April 8.

But Vanessa Houlder informs: “Over $1tn of cash has been booked offshore, even if the money is held in US banks or Treasury bonds.” “Tax havens seen as ‘grease on wheels’ of cross-border trade” April 8.

All those “overseas profit piles” have, in some way or another, already been deployed and so, to redeploy these, means having to liquidate their current positions.

What if the “more than $2tn” had all been invested in public debt and you repatriated all of it and the government got a 10 percent cut on it?

Then of course governments would owe ‘more than $200bn’ less, but if they for instance wanted to better any “lousy infrastructure”, then they would have to sell fresh public debt in the market. And, since the stockpile-holders have been diminished, that would most certainly imply having to pay higher interest rates. That is of course, unless governments are not assisted by banks holding it against zero capital requirements, or central banks buying up public debt for the governments own “stockpiles of cash”.

It is amazing the kind of demagoguery that is floating around. It is dangerously divisive. At the end of the day what it really comes down to, is who is going to decide on how any accumulated wealth is to be redeployed, whether the private or some government bureaucrats.

I truly believe that current governments waste, represents much more lost value than what is inappropriately or illegally diverted into these oh-so-horrible “stockpiles of cash”. And so I would like to see the expected repatriation profiteers kept at bay. Perhaps all citizens in some Universal Basic Income/Wealth scheme could share the governments’ cut of any repatriated assets?

And by the way, what are we to do with Putin’s “stockpiles of cash”, those that might be fully invested in the US? Send it back to Russia to Mr Putin?

Do these comments mean that I condone what distorts or what is illegal? Of course not! All tax systems should be improved and all taxes should be paid! There are occasions though in which I find it quite relevant to ask: How much failed nation or tyrannical government is needed for citizens’ capital to be granted immediate asylum?

For not questioning the IMF staff sufficiently, Christine Lagarde might, sadly, not deserve her second term

Sir, Vanessa Houlder lauds Ms Lagarde for having “frequently deferred to the fund’s staff in formulating policy” “Lagarde deserves her second term at the IMF” February 25.

That is indeed laudable, but that does not exonerate her from posing the questions that need to be made.

On several occasions I have had the opportunity to ask Ms Lagarde, and IMF staff, about the wisdom of credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks imposed by bank regulators.

Specifically, as an example, here follows two simple question the General Manager of IMF should make and should expect the staff of IMF to answer in unequivocal terms:

Question 1: Why do you think that the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks, which allow banks to earn higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to "the safe" than when lending to "the risky", like SMEs and entrepreneurs, do not dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy?

Question 2: If no bank crisis ever has resulted from excessive bank exposures to what was ex ante perceived as "risky", as these have always resulted from too large exposures to what was ex ante perceived as "safe", why do you require a bank to hold more capital when lending to "the risky" than when lending to "the safe"?

If only Ms Lagarde had officially asked those simple questions, not allowing for any type of evasion, then perhaps bank regulations might have look quite differently; and the world’s economy be in a much better shape.

But she, apparently, has not!

PS. For a starter IMF research should try to answer: How many bank loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs have not been awarded worldwide, during the last decade, only because of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks: ten thousands, hundred thousands, millions?

@PerKurowski ©

G8, by championing the Extractive Industries Transparency Directive, might be selling snake-oil-illusions

Sir, I refer to Vanessa Houlder’s note “Extractive Industries” June 11, where she writes about Cameron urging his G8 partners to champion the Extractive Industries Transparency Directive, June 11.

I certainly appreciate the efforts of the initiative but, as an oil-cursed citizen of a country like Venezuela, where over 97 percent of all the nations exports go directly into government coffers, I cannot but feel that selling the idea that that kind of transparency could solve our oil curse problems, is like selling snake-oil-illusions, something which can only help the ruler and his petrocrats.

Let me ask you, if the UK was in a similar position, would you settle for more transparency, or would you directly go for wrestling that excessive natural resource power out of your ruler’s hand?

By the way, in 2003 you published a letter in which I held that all European taxmen were, by means of gasoline/petrol taxes getting more revenues per barrel of oil than any country who gives up that non-renewable resource forever. And, since that is still true, even at current oil prices, I ask again why does not EITI’s call for transparency cover that?

The best way to compete with tax havens and fiscal paradises abroad is to create tax heavens and paradises at home.

Sir, Vanessa Houlder writes that with respect to tax avoidance “Governments are complicit in the problems they are condemning. It is their tax systems that has created incentives for businesses to behave that way”, “Talk is cheap in the clampdown on tax avoidance” May 4. And she is more correct than what she probably knows. I have always held that the best way to compete with tax havens and fiscal paradises abroad is to create tax heavens and paradises at home.

Also considering the enormous growth in fiscal income and the relative poor delivery of services, like the costs of any government financed infrastructure going to the roof, we might be reaching the point in which governments become too-big-to-govern, and in which case some escape valves could prove to be blessings in disguise. For instance, once the air cleans in Greece, private Greek capital safeguarded abroad might prove indispensable for the survival of Greece.