No President Obama. No country with bank regulations based on credit risk aversion can speak of having a bold voice

Sir, Barack Obama writes “the US is ready to lead a global effort on behalf of new jobs, stronger growth, and lasting prosperity for all our people well into the 21st century. “America’s bold voice cannot be the only one” November 13.

He mentions: 1. “fiscal policy that supports short-term demand and invests in our future”; 2. “boost demand by putting more money into the pockets of middle-class consumers who drive growth”; 3. “more inclusive growth by lowering barriers to entering the labour force.” 4. “high-standard trade agreements that actually benefit the middle class” 5. “greater public investment… through new private investment in clean energy.”

Nowhere does he make a reference to the need of getting rid of bank regulations that are blocking the risk-taking needed to achieve sustainable economic growth.

The pillar of current bank regulations is the credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more risk, more capital -less risk, less capital. Since banks, when deciding on risk premiums and amounts of exposure, already clears for credit risk, this results in an excessive consideration of credit risk. Any risk, even though perfectly perceived leads to the wrong results if excessively considered.

And therefore, in words attributed to Mark Twain, we now have banks that lend you the umbrella, much faster than usual if the sun is out, and take it away, much faster than usual if it seems like it could rain. In other words our bank’s, by having been given permissions to leverage much more with what is perceived as safe, earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to the safe are, consequentially, behaving more risk-averse than ever.

If one wants banks to be constructively bold, then one should set the capital requirements based, not on pitiful credit risk weights, but on daring purpose weights, like for instance based on “clean energy” and job-creation ratings, and SDGs in general.

And this will not cause the banking sector to become unstable, just the opposite. Never ever are major bank crisis the result of excessive exposures to something perceived as risky when placed on the balance sheets of banks… only of something ex ante perceived as safe that ex post turns out risky.

PS. This is also a civil rights issue. These regulations that double down on credit risk, discriminate against the rights of the risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, to have fair access to bank credit.

@PerKurowski ©

In a world with reduced lebensraum it might be time for the Dollar II

Sir Jeffrey Gartner tells us “We must get ready for a weak-dollar world” November 30. It sounds like wishful thinking since what we need to get ready for is for a weak world, since it looks like the business model of most countries is out of synch with so many realities, among others the diminishing lebensraum that energy scarcity and environmental threats are signalling.

Also, when Gartner writes about a multi-currency framework as an alternative to the dollar, but says that”this regime will take time to devise” this is just another way of ignoring that, if we do not want to use gold, the only alternative to the dollar, for the time being, is the dollar II, to which the old baby-boomer dollars can be converted at a rate of ??? The dollar II would be a more transparent and perhaps even less socially traumatic than that of “camouflage a slow-motion default” by means of inflation.

What a world! A citizen admonishing monetary authorities “to meet secretly”, “perhaps between Christmas and New Year, to start discussions... (to avoid spooking the markets)” Has Gartner not heard about gate-crashers, twitter and facebook?

What happens to the environment is indeed a risk that finance ministers should talk more about

Sir the finance ministers from the US the UK and Japan speak with one voice when in “Financial bridge from dirty to clean” February 8, they say that without a global investment framework built on market incentives the global deployment of clean energy technologies is going to be very difficult but they also note that not doing so will be very risky for us all.

Well this is exactly the sort of real societal risks that were ignored by financial regulators when they designed the minimum capital requirements for banks based on a very narrow definition of risk namely that of a default. If a default occurs because someone was trying to help the planet it would seem like something more acceptable to the society if there were no default but the bank was financing the purchase of a new car that will produce more carbon.

It is not that I am saying that banks should take stupid risks in environmental protection projects…but neither should finance ministers through their regulations create non-transparent subsidies for what just the credit rating agencies believe are low risk projects while ignoring all other risks faced by humanity.

If a bank lends a AAA corporate client a 100 dollars the bank need 1.6 dollars in capital if it lends to riskier below BB- reacted environmental project the bank needs 12 dollars in capital. Is this what the minister’s mean with market incentives?