FT, that what is perceived risky is as dangerous to banks than what is perceived as safe, is not a “roughly right analysis”

Sir, you write: “The world may not return to what was normal before the global financial crisis… Still, consumers, investors and businesses should take some comfort that the central banks of the world’s biggest market economies have roughly the right analysis of where they are and how they might react in a downturn.” “Central banks correctly go their separate ways” June 16.

No way! With their continuous support of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, central bankers evidence they have not understood “where they are know”. They are not “roughly right” but totally wrong. What can generate those excessive exposures that can endanger bank systems is not what is ex ante perceived as risky, but what is ex ante perceived as safe. 

Certainly central bankers the regulators did not commit this mistake on purpose, but the fact remains that they have produced much suffering; just think what their 0% risk weighting did to Greece. To hold then somewhat accountable, should we parade them down the D.C. Mall wearing dunce caps?

@PerKurowski

There must be serious consequences for regulators and controllers who fail or allow themselves to be cheated

Sir, Tim Harford writes “In the case of VW, transparency was the enemy: regulators should have been vaguer about the emissions test to prevent cheating” “How do you catch a cheat?” February 19.

What? That seems like the absolutely most certain way to produce a cheat. Or is it that Harford believes regulators and emission controllers are a different set of humans with angel like qualities? Does he not understand what kind of temptations that would create?

Sir, the greatest problem with Volkswagen cheating on US emissions tests, is that the failed emission controllers who allowed themselves to be cheated have not been publicly shamed and sent packing home. Just like the extremely failed bank regulators of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision have not been. In fact, the latter are still working on tweaking their fundamentally wrong regulations.

If creating regulations and controlling what’s being regulated carries no consequence when failing or being cheated, things are only bound to get worse. So, should we parade Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, Mario Draghi, Stefan Ingves and all their other bank regulating colleagues down our avenues wearing dunce caps? Why not? Do we not owe at least that to all who have suffered and will be suffering the consequences? Sincerely that seems like a very minor and gentle reprimand for all the societal damages they have caused with their risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

Sir, Harford correctly concludes though with “The truth is that the world can be messy place. When our response is a tidy structure of targets and checkboxes, the problems really begin”. Precisely! It reminds me of an Op-Ed I wrote in 1998 titled “Regulations as enemies of bank missions”

PS. Sir you might ask why I here mention Paul Volcker. The truth is that he was one of the responsible for the genesis of what with time will be considered one of the greatest statist regulatory failures ever. 

@PerKurowski

To parade badly failed global bank regulators wearing dunce caps, is one right way to silence dangerous nationalism

Sir, I am all for globalization. My father a polish soldier saved from Buchenwald by the Americans; I was born in Venezuela; with high school and university (economist) in Sweden; an MBA in Venezuela, spent over a year as an intern in a British Merchant Bank in London (and LSE and LBS); also a Polish citizen; a financial and strategic consultant in Venezuela; a representative in Caracas for a Chilean bank; having worked for corporations and investors from and in many places; a former Executive Director of the World Bank who wanted migrants to have a seat at its Board so that the world at large would have more representation; since 15 years living in Washington; and now happily with a grandfather of two Canadians, I am, de facto, probably as globalized as you can be.

But, if what’s put on my plate is dumb and dangerous globalism, then I swear I have no problem whatsoever going very local, in order to defend to my very best, my many diverse national interests, of course, primarily, those of my grandchildren.

So now, when I see Martin Wolf, in “The economic perils of nationalism” January 18, writing that those (Davos/Basel Committee) globalizers who created a “financial crisis” have seen “their reputation for probity and competence… devastated” I cannot but say: “My oh my, what a lie!”

There all still there. Those who retired might have written well-reviewed books, or had positive books written about them, and those who have not retired, have actually been promoted.

I am totally for trade, and so I fully agree with Martin Wolf in that “one might gain more from foreigners than fellow citizens”. But that does not have to mean you give foreign citizens the opportunities you deny your own.

When bank regulators introduced their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, they gave banks more incentives to finance “The Safe”, like sovereigns and AAArisktocracy, no matter where these found themselves on the globe, than to finance “The Risky” of their localities, like SMEs and entrepreneurs. And that was wrong, and that did not serve any purpose. If I am going to have to suffer a bank crisis, I prefer a thousand times that to be the result of banks having financed my locals too much, than for instance, in the case of European banks, these having financed the US residential subprime sector too much.

Sir, what’s our real problem? It is that there is more accountability on the local level than on the globalized one, and that of course, opens up the door for any misguided populism.

To for instance start parading bad global bank regulators down our avenues, wearing dunce caps, instead of giving them a red carpet treatment in Davos, would be a good way to begin silencing dangerous nationalism.

PS. That parade would perhaps also have to include all those who have so much favored regulators by keeping so mum about their failures. Mi capisci?

@PerKurowski

I am a whistleblower, on lousy bank regulators, and FT, not withstanding its “Without fear and without favours”, also ignores me.

Sir, William D Cohan writes about the travails of “Wall Street whistleblowers”, May 31. In it he writes about “how little the regulators charged with keeping watch over the Wall Street banks seem to care about holding them in any way accountable”. The same can be said about how little those in charge with keeping watch over the regulators, like the Financial Times, seem to care little about holding them in any way accountable.

Since years back I am a whistleblower, on the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, accusing it for having designed absolutely useless and even dangerous bank regulations. And though very few can demonstratively prove to have alerted from a reasonably high position bureaucratic post about what was wrong, the silence with which FT has met all my comments, has been deafening.

Just as an example, in a written formal statement at the World Bank, as an Executive Director I warned “

We believe that much of the world’s financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models that are based on very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions.”

And FT itself published one letter, in January 2003, in which wrote: “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds. Friend, please consider that the world is tough enough as it is”; and another letter, in October 2004, in which I asked “How many Basel propositions it will take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector (sovereigns)?” 

But, just in case, am I arguing that anyone of the regulators has committed and illegal act for which they should be jailed? Of course not! Only that they have been so dumb that we need to parade them all down Wall Street, wearing dunce caps – or cones of shame… in order to increase our chances that the regulators think twice next time they feel as Masters of the Universe… and perhaps they should be joined in the parade by the editor of FT.

PS. Here is the link to my over 1.300 letters to FT on the subject.

PS. One day perhaps there will be a whistleblower within FT willing to explain it all :-)

The Basel Committee, with its Basel II, was at least 90% responsible for AAA rated AIG´s collapse.

Sir, of course “Insurers may be at the centre of the next big crisis” as Patrick Jenkins writes, December 27.

But when Jenkins describes AIG´s collapse in terms of it becoming “diversified so fast that it became impossible to manage and regulate”, he does not explain with sufficient clarity what really happened.

AIG, by having an AAA rating, was granted by bank regulators the gift of by lending its name, being able to reduce immensely the capital requirements for the banks. And that was worth so much in the market, that the banks went crazy borrowing AIG´s name and AIG lending it out… and no credit rating agency was fast enough to pick that up.

Had not Basel II been approved, something else bad could have happened to AIG, but not what happened. And I just wonder why this insistence on shielding the regulators from the truth that they were (and are) the party most responsible for the crisis, because of how they distorted all bank resource allocation, with their stupid capital requirements based on some perceived risks which are already cleared for by other means.

The members of the Basel Committee should be made to parade down our avenues wearing dunce caps. If there is one single spot where total accountability must be absolutely required, that should be in those committees that take upon them to design global rules for all.

The thought of having the same failed bank regulators given some powers to also regulate the insurers, “now a crucial part of the so called shadow banking sector” is as scary as can be.

Why should banks’ willing spirits but weak flesh be able to resist extreme regulatory temptations?

Sir, I refer to Kara Scannell, Tom Braithwaite and Gina Chon’s report on how government is now, seemingly for political reasons, trying to make up for lost time, by laying it hard on those guilty of producing and packaging lousy mortgages into AAA rated securities, “The paper tiger roars”, October 26.

I am a firm believer that those guilty of it should have been fully prosecuted, from day one, but, what most angers me, is how no blame has been placed on those regulators who, by tempting willing spirits but weak flesh too much, caused the whole problem.

Basel II bank regulations, those which the US also signed up on in June 2004, stated that banks, against loans to unrated businesses, were required to hold 8 percent in capital (equity), but, that against AAA rated securities, 1.6 percent sufficed. And that meant that banks were allowed to leverage their equity 50 times more when holding AAA rated securities, than when holding loans to unrated businesses.

How could regulators have expected the banks to resist such extraordinary temptations? Prosecute, as dumb, and have them parade down avenues wearing dunce caps, those regulators who so tempted our banks.

Parade bank regulators down 5th Av, wearing dunce caps, so the next generations of them, know they will be held accountable.

Sir, Mr. William N Kring writes “Banks continuing to sabotage reform”, September 21. Indeed, of course, that’s their business.

But, the number one saboteurs of the much needed reforms are the regulators. By hanging on to their so misguided capital requirements based on ex ante perceived risk, as if their risk perceptions had not previously been seen and cleared for by bankers, they keep creating the regulatory muddiness which allows for the so much muddy lobbying by the banks.

What could banks do if for instance there was just one simple and transparent battle line, like an 8 percent capital requirement on any type of bank assets?

But that would also signify that the whole regulatory establishment would need to confess they were absolutely wrong, from beginning to end, when they with immense hubris thought they could be the risk managers of the world, and started to impose risk-weights, and which only distorted all common sense out of the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Damn them, make them parade down 5th Av, wearing dunce caps, so that next generations of bank regulators know they will be held accountable.