Why does the world ignore regulations that totally disrupt the allocation of bank credit?

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Shocks from war in Ukraine are many-sided. - The conflict is a multiplier of disruption in an already disrupted world” FT April 27.

The concentration of human fallible regulatory power in the Basel Committee has, since 1988, resulted in bank capital requirements mostly based on that what’s perceived as risky e.g., loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs, is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived or decreed as safe e.g., government debt and residential mortgages; and not on misperceived risks or unexpected events, like a pandemic or a war. 

What can go wrong? I tell you Sir.

When times are good and perceived risks low, these pro-cyclical capital requirements allow banks to hold little capital, pay big dividends & bonuses, do stock buybacks; and so, when times get rough, banks stand there naked, just when we need them the most.

And of course, meanwhile, these capital requirements, by much favoring the refinancing of the safer present over the financing of the riskier future, have much disrupted the allocation of credit

Why has the world for decades ignored this amazing regulatory mistake?

Sir, perhaps you could ask Martin Wolf to explain that to us.

PS. Two tweets today on bank regulators’ credit risk weighted bank capital requirements.

What kind of banks do we want?

Banks who allocate credit based on risk adjusted interest rates?

Or banks who allocate credit based on risk adjusted returns on the equity that besserwisser regulators have decreed should be held against that specific asset?

https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2021/01/and-academia-kept-silence.html

Bank events' matrix

What’s perceived risky turns out safe

What’s perceived risky turns out risky

What’s perceived safe turns out safe

What’s perceived safe turns out risky

Which quadrangle is really dangerous?

Covered by current capital requirements?

NO!

https://youtu.be/TUdKhm6_a8Y

For inflation, where the money supply goes, matters a lot too

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “The monetarist dog is having its day”, FT February 23.

Yes, the money supply impacts inflation, no doubts but, when it comes to how much, that also depends on where that money supply goes.

If central banks inject liquidity through a system where, because of risk weighted capital requirements, banks can leverage more, meaning easier obtain higher risk adjusted returns on equity with Treasuries and residential mortgages, than with loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs, does that not favor demand over supply?

It does, and you should not have to be a Milton Friedman to understand that sooner or later that can only help inflate any inflation.

Wolf holds that “Central banks must be humble and prudent” Yes, and that goes for bank regulators too.

“Humble” in accepting there are huge limits to their knowing what the real risks in an uncertain world are; and “prudent” as in knowing bank capital requirements are mainly needed as a buffer against the certainty of misperceived credit risks and unexpected events, and not like now, mostly based on the certainty of perceived credit risks.

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, again, any good economic plan needs, sine qua non, to get rid of bank credit distorting regulations.

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Without an economic plan, patriotism is Johnson’s last refuge” FT, October 18, 2021

In Martin Wolf’s Economist Forum of October 2009, FT published an opinion I titled “Please free us from imprudent risk-aversion and give us some prudent risk-taking” (The link is gone, I wonder why)

In that article, commenting partly on the 2008 crisis, I held that getting rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements, that which distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy, was an absolute must. 

Now, 11 years later, I must still insist in that, without doing so, there’s no economic plan that can deliver sustainable results.

A new monetary order requires the old regulatory order.

I refer to Chris Watling’s “Now is the time to devise a new monetary order” March 19.

Sir, it is hard for me to understand how Watling, correctly pointing out so many distortions in the allocation credit and liquidity, can do so without specifically referencing the role of the risk weighted bank capital requirements.

For “the world economy [to] move closer to a cleaner capitalist model where financial markets return to their primary role of price discovery and capital allocation is based on perceived fundamentals”, getting rid of Basel Committee’s regulations is a must.

For such thing to happen, discussing and understanding how distorted these are, is where it must start.

E.g., Paul Volcker, in his 2018 “Keeping at it” penned together with Christine Harper valiantly confessed: “The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which bank capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages”.

Sir, why is that opinion of Volcker rarely or perhaps even never quoted? Could it be because in a mutual admiration club it’s not comme-il-faut for a member to remark “We’re not wearing any clothes?

Volcker mentions “The US practice had been to assess capital adequacy by using a simple ‘leverage ratio’- capital available to absorb losses on the bank’s total assets”

Going back there, would return banks to loan officers; and send all those dangerously capital minimizing/leverage maximizing creative financial engineers packing.

My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board

My 2019 letter to the IMF

@PerKurowski

 

Before aiming at any target, central banks must cure their shortsightedness

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “What central banks ought to target” FT, March 3.

With risk weighted bank capital requirements, the regulators are targeting what’s perceived as risky, thereby de facto fostering the creation of the excessive exposures to what’s perceived as safe, but that could end up being risky, which is precisely what all major bank crises are made off. In other words, they are putting future Minsky moments on steroids.

And if to the distortions in the allocation of credit to the economy that produces, you add the QEs, then you end up with such a mish-mash of monetary policy that no one, not even Mr. Wolf, should be able to make heads and tails out of it.

Wolf writes, “Central banking is art, not science… it must be coupled to deep awareness of uncertainty”. Sir, I ask, can you think of anything that evidences such lack of awareness of uncertainty than the risk weighted bank capital requirements?

So, before discussing what else to target, it is essential that central banks and regulators get their shortsightedness corrected.

Of course, “the central bank [should] set a rate that is consistent with a macroeconomic equilibrium” but, what would those rates be if banks needed to hold as much money when lending to the sovereign (the King) than when lending to citizens?

And when Wolf reports that “the New Zealand government has told its central bank to target house prices”, that makes me ask: Is anyone aware of the implications of having a central banks placed in the middle of that real, though not named, class war between those who have houses as investment assets and those who just want affordable homes?

Finally, as so many do, Wolf also signs up on that: “If people want less wealth inequality, they should argue for wealth and inheritance taxes”. But just as most do, he does so without explaining what assets, and to whom, the wealthy should sell, in order to reacquire that cash/purchase power needed to pay the tax that they handed over to the economy when they bought these. Not doing so, leaves one quite often a sort of populist aftertaste.

PS. Inflation? Just the same old confusion

@PerKurowski

Macroeconomic theory stands no chance while autocratic regulators distort the allocation of bank credit.

Sir, in reference to Martin Sandbu’s “The revolutions under way in macroeconomics”, January 28, I must ask: What macroeconomic theory stands a chance against the Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements? 

Lower bank capital requirements when lending onto the government than when lending to citizens, de facto implies bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they’re not personally responsible for than e.g. entrepreneurs. 

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing the central government than when financing local governments, de facto implies federal bureaucrats know much better what to do with credit than local bureaucrats.

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing residential mortgages, de facto implies that those buying a house are more important for the economy than, e.g. small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing the “safer” present than when financing the “riskier” future, de facto implies placing a reverse mortgage on the current economy and giving up on our grandchildren’s future.

https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2019/07/risk-weights-are-to-access-to-credit.html

@PerKurowski

By not asking all the questions that need to be asked, journalists also fail society.

Sir, Henry Manisty writes “financial journalism plays a vital role in upholding the integrity of financial markets”, “EU regulators have form on obstructing journalists” November 9.

Indeed, but in many respects, financial journalists have often failed society by not doing that. For instance, here are just three examples of questions that should have been posed directly to the regulators, long ago.

We know that those excessive bank exposures that can be dangerous to banks and bank systems are always created with assets perceived as safe, never ever with assets perceived as risky. Therefore, can you please explain your risk weighted bank capital requirements based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous than what’s perceived as safe?

Before risk weighted bank capital requirements credit was allocated on the basis of risk adjusted interest net margins and a view on the portfolio. After that it is allocated based on risk adjusted returns on equity; which obviously those that banks can leverage less with, e.g. “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs. Explain how this does not distort the allocation of bank credit?

Even though none of Eurozone sovereigns can print euros on their own, for your risk weighted bank capital requirements you decreed a zero-risk weight for all of their debts. What do you think would have happened in the USA if it had done the same with its 50 states?

Sir, paraphrasing Upton Sinclair one could say that “It's difficult to get a journalist to ask something, when his salary, or being invited to Davos, depends on his not asking it.”

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board (FSB)

Where would the City of London be if in the 19th Century it had been placed under the thumb of a Basel Committee?

Sir, I refer to your “The City must not be forgotten in Brexit talks” September 29. In view of the City’s real existential problem, I find it a bit irrelevant 

Creative financial engineers tricked or ably lobbied bank regulators into accommodating their wishes for leverage maximization/equity minimization, by introducing risk weighted bank capital requirements nonsensically based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to bank system than what’s perceived as safe.

That caused loan officers to allocate credit not as it used to by means risk adjusted interest rates but to allocate it by means of risk adjusted returns on equity. If the City of London is to survive as one of the prime banking centers of the world it needs to get rid of that distortion.

FT, without fear and without favor dare to think what would have been of the City of London if in the 19th Century it had to operate under the thumb of Basel Committee inspired risk adverse regulations?

PS. And if in 1910 that savvy loan officer George Banks had been asked about risk-weights, Tier 1 capital and CoCos, I am sure he would have gone to fly a kite.

The privileged subsidizing of sovereign debt that apparently shall not be named

Sir, let us suppose that as credit risks, banks perceived Martin Wolf and me as equally risky or equally safe. We would then, for the same amount of borrowings, be charged the same risk adjusted interest rate.

But then suppose that for whatever strange reason, regulators allowed banks to leverage much more with loans to me than with loans to Martin Wolf, and so banks would therefore obtain higher returns on equity when lending to me than when lending to Martin Wolf.

And also suppose that for some even stranger reason, Bank of England would buy my loans from the banks, but not those loans given to Martin Wolf.

Clearly the result would be that I would be able to borrow much more and at much cheaper rates from banks than what Martin Wolf could.

Would Martin Wolf in such a case opine that the higher interest rates he had to pay was the result of the market?

I ask this because Martin Wolf frequently makes reference to the very low rates that many sovereigns have to pay, and holds they should take advantage of it by borrowing as much as they can, in order to invest for instance in infrastructure.

And Martin Wolf seemingly refuses to consider those “very low rates” a consequence of regulatory favors of sovereign debts and QE purchases of it.

That distorts the allocation of credit in such a way that, de facto, regulators and central banks believe bureaucrats / politicians know better what to do with credit they’re not personally responsible for than for instance entrepreneurs. 

In the best case I would call that crony statism, in the worst outright communism. 

One day future historians will recount, and Paris’ Musée de L’Homme exhibit: “1988 Basel I: When Regulators introduced Financial Communism”

The seeds of the next debt crisis are to be found in the kicking of the 2008 crisis can forward, without correcting for what caused that crisis.

Sir, I refer to John Plender’s “The seeds of the next debt crisis” March 4.

Plender writes: “From the late 1980s, central banks — and especially the Fed — conducted what came to be known as “asymmetric monetary policy”, whereby they supported markets when they plunged but failed to damp them down when they were prone to bubbles. Excessive risk taking in banking was the natural consequence”

Not exactly “risk taking”! The risk weighted capital requirements caused excessive dangerous bank exposures, not to what was perceived risky, like loans to entrepreneurs, but to what was perceived safe, like residential mortgages; or decreed as safe, like the sovereign; or concocted as safe, like what banks’ internal risk models produced.

Plender asks: “Has the regulatory response to the great financial crisis been sufficient to rule out another systemic crisis and will the increase in banks’ capital provide an adequate buffer against the losses that will result from widespread mispricing of risk?”

No, it has not been sufficient. That because the incoherent response to a crisis caused by AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the US’s subprime sector, was to keep on using risk weighted bank capital requirements based on perceived EXPECTED losses, and not on UNEXPECTED losses.

Plender writes: “The central banks’ quantitative easing since the crisis, which involves the purchase of government bonds and other assets, is, in effect, a continuation of this asymmetric approach”

Indeed, in 2006, when an upcoming crisis was slowly being detected by some, FT published a letter in which I argued for “The long-term benefits of a hard landing”. Sadly, central bankers and regulators wanted nothing of such thing, on their watch, and kicked the 2008 crisis can forward to our children and grandchildren, as hard as they could, and here we are… with world borrowings up to the tilt, and lenders waiting to be blown away by a coronavirus.

PS. At this moment, this letter not included, in my TeaWithFT blog, there appears 2.948 letters sent to you over soon two decades on the issue of “subprime banking regulations”.

@PerKurowski

Sovereign borrowings are never “for free”. There are always opportunity costs, especially when there’s so much distortion favoring it.

Sir, you hold that “Fiscal stimulus can relieve monetary policy if invested wisely” “Governments must learn to love borrowing again” December 9.

“If invested wisely”, what a caveat, but so could private borrowing and investment help do. That is if they were allowed to access bank credit in a non-discriminatory way. As is much lower statist bank capital requirements when lending to the sovereign, has banks basically doing QEs acquiring sovereign debt, and this also implies bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they’re not personally responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs.

It surprises when you state: “Central banks should not be blamed for loose monetary policy. As long as governments are not willing to expand on the fiscal side, central bankers are legally obliged to make up the shortfall in demand support” Legally obliged? Are you constructing a defense for all those failed central bankers that FT has so much helped to egg on? Because, as you yourself argue, “ultra-loose monetary policy has inflated asset prices and may be slowing productivity growth by keeping uneconomic businesses alive”, they sure have failed.

I also find it shameful to argue: “When governments can borrow for free there is little reason not to invest to the hilt.” What “for free”? The current low cost of government borrowing is the direct result of QEs and regulatory discrimination against other bank borrowers, and that distortion results in huge opportunity costs for the society. Also each new public debt contracted eats up a part of that borrowing capacity at a reasonable cost, which is an asset that should not be squandered away. Reading this editorial, which in summary begs for kicking the crisis can forward by any available means, makes me feel inclined to suspect you have no grandchildren.

Sir, finally, with governments borrowing to tackle “green transition challenges” you are opening up great opportunities for climate change profiteers, which will be exploited, you can bet on that. The more concerned you are with climate change the more concerned you should be with keeping all climate-change-fight financial/political profiteers far away. If not we will not be able to afford the fight against climate change, or to help mitigate its consequences.

Financial communism... that's what we have

@PerKurowski

Bank regulators rigged capitalism in favor of the state and the “safer” present and against the “riskier” future.

Sir, Martin Wolf with respect to needed financial sector reforms mentions “Radical solution: raise the capital requirements of banking intermediaries substantially, while reducing prescriptive interventions; and, crucially, eliminate the tax-deductibility of interest, so putting debt finance on a par with equity.” “How to reform today’s rigged capitalism” December 4.

What has rigged capitalism the most during the last decades is the introduction of risk weighted bank capital requirements which rigs the allocation of credit in favor of the sovereign and that which is perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, and against the credit needed to finance the riskier future, like SMEs and entrepreneurs.

That distortion is no eliminated with general higher capital requirements like the leverage ratio introduced with Basel III, but only by totally eliminating the credit risk weighting.

Wolf expresses great concern “over the role of money in politics and way the media works” I agree. The reason why media in general, and FT in particular, have refused to denounce the stupidity with credit risk weighted bank capital requirements based on that what bankers perceive risky being more dangerous to our bank systems than what bankers perceive safe, is most probably not wanting to trample on bankers’ toes. As is, bankers are allowed to leverage the most; to earn the highest risk adjusted return on equity, on what they think safe. Is that not a bankers dream come true? As is, we are facing the dangerous overpopulation by banks of all safe havens, while the rest of us are then forced out to the risky oceans in search of any returns. 

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A. Shedd.

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/10/please-free-us-from-imprudent-risk.html

@PerKurowski

If Brexit goes hand in hand with a Baselexit, Britain will at least do better than now.

Sir, Martin Wolf titles, [and I add], “Irresponsible promises will hit brutal economic reality" November 15.

Just like the irresponsible and populist promise of “We will make bank systems safer with our risk weighted bank capital requirements" and that is based on that what bankers perceive as risky is more dangerous than what they perceive as safe, brutally hits our real economies.

Wolf quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies with, “over the last 11 years [before any Brexit], productivity — as measured by output per hour worked — has grown by just 2.9 per cent. That is about as much as it grew on average every 15 months in the preceding 40 years.”

And I ask, could that have something to do with that Basel II that introduced capital requirements that allowed banks to leverage their equity much more with the “safer” present than with the “riskier” future, for instance 62.5 times with what has an AAA to AA rating while only 12.5 times with a loan to an unrated entrepreneur? Of course it has. With it regulators gave banks the incentives to dangerously overpopulate safe havens, and to abandon their most vital social purpose, which is to allocate credit efficiently to the real economy.

So compared to the damage done by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision any foreseen negative consequences of Brexit seem minuscule.

And with respect to obtaining financial resources for financing the investments in infrastructure that Wolf so much desires, and which would cause larger fiscal deficits he argues “a necessary condition would be the confidence of the world’s savers and investors in the good sense, self-discipline and realism of British policymakers.”

Indeed, what if British policymakers stated. “We abandon the Basel Committee’s regulations. Not only are these with their 0% risk weight to the sovereign and 100% the citizens outright communistic, but these also introduced a risk aversion that truly shames all those British bankers who in past times daringly took risks and with it bettered Britain’s future”. 

Sir, I hold that would be a much-needed example for the whole world of good sense, self-discipline and realism. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A. Shedd.

Sir, Wolf seemingly thinks that remaining in a EU in which its authorities assigned a 0% risk weight to all Eurozone’s sovereign debts, even though none of these can print Euros is better for Britain. As I see it, that is a reason for running away from it even more speedily.

PS. Should not bank supervisors be mostly concerned with bankers not perceiving the risks correctly? Of course! So, with the risk weighted capital requirements, what are they doing betting our bank system on that the bankers will perceive credit risks correctly?

@PerKurowski

The Basel Committee jammed banks’ gearboxes… not only in India

Amy Kazmin reporting on India quotes Rajeev Malik, founder of Singapore-based Macroshanti, in that “A well-oiled, well-functioning financial system is the gearbox of the economy”, “Financial system is ‘like a truck with a messed-up gearbox’” September 23.

The financial system’s gearbox got truly messed up when regulators decided that banks could leverage differently their capital based on perceived risk… more risk more capital, less risk less capital… as if what is perceived as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what is perceived as safe.

And Kazmin writes: “The financial companies that had provided much of India’s credit growth in recent years are now struggling with access to funding themselves after the shocking collapse of AAA-rated infrastructure lender, IL&FS, last year.”

Could that have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Basel II regulations banks needed to hold only 1.6% in capital when human fallible credit rating agencies assigned an AAA to AA rating to a corporation?

And Kazmin writes: “With its own voracious appetite for funds to finance its fiscal deficit, New Delhi is now mopping up much of the country’s household savings through a clutch of small schemes such as post office savings that offer higher rates than commercial banks.”

Could that have something to do with the fact that since 1988 Basel I regulations, banks need to no capital at all against loans to the government of India… but 8% when lending to Indian entrepreneurs.

Sir, risk taking is the oxygen of any development so, with such a dysfunctional gearbox, how is India going to make it? None of the richer countries would ever have developed the same with Basel Committee’s bank regulations… and all their bank crises, those that always result from something safe turning risky, would have all been so much worse, as these failed exposures would have been held against especially little capital. 

Here is a document titled “Are the bank regulations coming from Basel good for development?” It was presented in October 2007 at the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Developing at the United Nations. It was also reproduced in 2008 in The Icfai University Journal of Banking Law. 

@PerKurowski

For capitalism to refunction, first get rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements.

Sir, Martin Wolf quotes HL Mencken with “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” “Saving capitalism from the rentiers” September 18.

Indeed, and the most populist, simplistic and wrong answer to how our banks should function, are the risk weighted bank capital requirements. These are naively based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe; and, with risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% the citizens, de facto also based on that bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they are not personally responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs.

And so when that what’s “super-safe”, like AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime U.S. sector exploded in 2008, this distorted bank credit mechanism, wasted away the immense amount of liquidity that were injected, creating asset bubbles, morphing houses from being homes into being investments assets, paying dividends and buying back shares.

“Tall trees deprive saplings of the light they need to grow. So, too, may giant companies”? Yes Mr Wolf, but so too does these stupid bank regulations.

“A capitalism rigged to favour a small elite” Yes Mr Wolf, but that small elite is not all private sector. The difference between the free market interest rates on sovereign debt that would exist absent regulatory subsidies and central bank purchases, and current ultra low or even negative rates, is just a non-transparent statist tax, paid by those who invest in such debt.

“We need a dynamic capitalist economy that gives everybody a justified belief that they can share in the benefits.” Yes Mr Wolf, but that should start by getting rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements, so that banks ask savvy loan officers to return, in order to substitute for the current equity minimizing financial engineers.

“Corporate lobbying overwhelms the interests of ordinary citizens” Yes Mr Wolf, but silencing the criticism of current bank regulations could also be the result of some journalists having been effectively lobbied. Or not?

"Capitalism"? No Mr. Wolf, what we really have is Crony Statism

My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board
My 2019 letter to the IMF

@PerKurowski

Two regulations will turn the beautiful dream of the European Union into a nightmare.

Sir, Ignazio Angeloni writing that “The ECB houses hundreds of experienced, dedicated [bank] supervisor” blames “fundamental weakness in the underlying laws and the “resolution” framework for dealing with ailing banks” for many of EU’s bank troubles. “A common thread runs through diverse EU financial misfortunes” September 13.

The lack of a good resolution framework is a problem when trying to solve difficulties but much worse is that which causes the problems, in this case two regulations that are endangering Europe and the euro. Seemingly none of EC’s experts were capable of doing anything about it.

First, something that also affects most other economies, the Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements. These seriously distort the allocation of credit, and, to top it up, are stupidly based on that what’s ex ante perceived as risky is more dangerous ex post to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe. 

And second, in this case only a homemade EU concoction, the lunacy of all times of having assigned a 0% risk weight to all Eurozone sovereigns’ debts, even though all that debt is not denominated in  their local/printable/fiat currency.

@PerKurowski

Ms. Gillian Tett, what is that we really have, capitalism or statism?

Sir, Gillian Tett lectures us interestingly with “If you want to understand what is at stake in this debate, it pays to consider the original meaning of the word ‘company’”... “a society, friendship, intimacy; body of soldiers”, “one who eats bread with you” “in other words initially synonymous with social ties”. “Capitalism — a new dawn?” September 7.

Yet, over the years I cannot rememer Ms. Tett saying a word about that our banks are regulated exclusively so as to be safe mattresses in which to put away our savings, without one single consideration given to their vital social purpose of allocating bank credit efficiently to the real economy. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for”, John A Shedd.

And Ms. Tett also writes “the 2008 financial crisis had undermined faith in unfettered free markets.” What? Like those “unfettered free markets” with Basel II regulations that when in order to borrow from banks, borrowers would have to remunerate an amount of bank capital of 0% if sovereigns, 1.6% if AAA rated, 2.8% if residential mortgages and 8% if unrated entrepreneurs?

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2019/07/risk-weights-are-to-access-to-credit.html

@PerKurowski

Risk weighted bank capital requirements are anathema to neoliberalism

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes “we have spent decades of living in the old reality — the post-Bretton Woods, neoliberal one.” "Markets are adjusting to a turbulent world" August 19.

There are many definitions of neoliberal policies out there but they always include a large role for the hands of the free market and the reduction in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy.

In 1988, for the banking sector, one of the most important economic agents, credit risk capital requirements were introduced by means of the Basel Accord. It gave incentives that distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. For instance lower risk weights for the sovereign (0%) and for residential mortgages (35%) signifies subsidizing the sovereign and the safer present, by taxing the access to credit for the riskier future, like to entrepreneurs (100%). So I do not know what neoliberalism Ms. Foroohar refers to.

Ms. Foroohar, speculating on the possible “impact of an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders victory in the US primaries?” mentions a 13D Global Strategy and Research note that holds that such event would “fit perfectly into the cycle from wealth accumulation to wealth distribution”, something that Foroohar also believes “will be the biggest economic shift of our lifetimes.”

Sir, at the very moment income, through the purchase of assets, is transformed into accumulated wealth; there cannot be any significant redistribution of it, which means having to sell many of those same assets, without any significant destruction of wealth. If you’re scared of a deep recession, as we all should indeed be, then the last think you’d want to do is to deepen it with a wealth redistribution cycle.

So we cannot redistribute? Yes, we can, but that’s best done getting hold of the income before it is converted into assets, and then, preferably, sharing it out equally to all, by means of an unconditional universal basic income.

@PerKurowski

Regulators forced banks into what’s perceived safe, thereby forcing the usually most risk adverse into what’s perceived risky.

Sir, Robin Wigglesworth writes “Many investors such as pension funds and insurers [are] pushed towards the only other option: venturing into the riskier corners of the bond market, such as fragile countries, heavily indebted companies and exotic, financially engineered instruments. These are securities they would normally shun — or at least demand a much higher return to buy.” “Negative yields force investors to snap up riskier debt” August 16.

As an example he mentions “Victoria a UK-based company that issued a €330m five-year bond that drew more than €1bn of orders [because] the relatively high 5.25 per cent yield it offered, helped investors swallow misgivings over its leverage.”

Clearly liquidity injections, like central banks’ huge QEs, has helped to move interest rates much lower everywhere, but, as I see it, much, or perhaps most of what Wigglesworth refers to is the direct consequence of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

That regulations allowed banks to leverage much more their capital with what’s perceived (decreed or concocted) as safe, than with what’s perceived as risky, which meant that banks can more easily obtain higher risk adjusted returns on equity with the safe than with the risky… and those incentives were as effective as ordering the banks what to do. That made banks substitute their savvy loan officers, precisely those who would be evaluating and lending to a Victoria, with equity minimizing financial engineers.

As a result the interest rates charged to the safe… little by little forced those who did not posses savvy loan officers to take up the role of banks.

Will it stop there? Not necessarily. Banks, and their regulators, are now slowly waking up to the fact that the margins that the regulation benefited “safes” offer, are not enough for banks to survive as banks. 

But how to get out of that mess will not be easy. Solely as an example, when in 1988 bank regulators assigned America’s public debt a 0.00% risk weight, its debt was about $2.6 trillion, now it is around $22 trillion and still has a 0.00% risk weight. How do you believe markets would react if it increased to 0.01%? 

@PerKurowski

In 1988 one year before the Berlin Wall fell another wall was constructed, one which separated sovereign and private bank borrowings.

Sir, I refer to Ben Hall’s “State ownership back in vogue 30 years after fall of Berlin Wall” August 15.

The only real competitive advantage those in favor of SOEs can argue, is that governments usually have cheaper access to credit, so why put it in the hands of private investors who need to expect higher returns. 

But in 1988 by means of the Basel Accord 1988 the risk weighted bank capital requirements were adopted. With these banks were allowed to hold sovereign debt against much less, sometimes even zero capital, than what these had to hold against loans to the private sector. As a result the interest rate differences between private and public debt started to grow and with it, the SOE’s competitive advantage, and so we should not be too surprised about these being “back in vogue”. 

To illustrate my point just let me ask: Sir, where would the interest rates now be for the 0% risk weighted sovereign Italy, this even though it takes on debt not denominated in a domestic printable currency be, if Italian banks needed to hold as much capital against these as what they must hold against loans to Italian entrepreneurs?

PS. Here my letter to the Financial Stability Board

PS. Here my recent letter to the IMF

@PerKurowski