Don’t keep adding bank regulations for what is ex ante perceived risky. It is what is ex ante perceived as very safe that should concern us the most.

Sir, I refer to Sheila Bair discussion of how much banks are to set aside in order to cover for loan losses. “Congress should stay out of new bank rules for loan losses” August 5.

Bair mentions, “that FASB wants to switch to a new rule, known by the name of “current expected credit losses” or “CECL.” That rule “says that banks should set aside enough to cover expected losses throughout the life of a loan, taking into account a wide variety of factors, including historic loss rates, market conditions, and the maturity of the economic cycle.”

Bair argues the new rule has two key benefits. “First, banks will start putting aside money on day one of each loan so when trouble hits — as it did in 2008 — they will not be trying to play catch-up with their reserves.” 

Really, what money would they have had to put aside for the AAA rated securities gone bad? What money would they have had to put aside for loans with a default guarantee issued by an AAA rated entity like AIG?

Then “Second, it should make bankers a little more cautious in their lending decisions, as they will have to account for likely losses when the loan is made, not kick the can down the road until the borrower is actually in arrears.”

That all has me concerned with that we might be adding a new layer of discrimination against the access to credit of the risky.

Those perceived ex ante as risky already get less credit and pay higher risk premiums. Those perceived ex ante as risky already cause banks to have to hold more equity against loans to them. 

If those perceived ex ante as risky must now also require banks to set aside reserves earlier than what is required for those perceived as safe, banks might stop altogether lending to the risky, like to entrepreneurs, and that will absolutely hurt the economy.

And Sir, it would all be for nothing, because major bank crises are never caused by excessive exposures to what was ex ante perceived as risky when placed on banks’ balance sheets. 

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-letter-to-financial-stability-board.html

@PerKurowski

Hardheaded bank regulators still believe they’re up against the expected while the real enemy is always the unexpected

Sir, Ben McLannahan discusses the consequences of changing “the current regime [in which] banks can hold off adding to reserves until the point at which losses on the loan become probable…[to one in which] banks will be made to log all expected losses over the life of the loan on day one, based on a combination of experience, their own forecasts and the state of the economy”, “Big lenders raise concerns over new loan loss rules” June 22.

One direct consequence of that is that those borrowers who are ex ante perceived as risky, will therefore force banks to recognize losses earlier than “when probable”. That might sound correct, but the real effect is that, when compared to those ex ante perceived as safe and which have lower probability of losses, it will discriminate against the risky.

And so when you layer this on top of the discriminations already produced by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, the access to bank credit for those perceived as risky will only become more difficult. And all really without making banks much safer. The expected never causes major bank crises, it is always the unexpected losses for what had erroneously been perceived as safe that does.

McLannahan reports that Hal Schroeder, a board member at FASB, opines that the new rule — known as the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL — “aligns the accounting with the economics of underwriting, and the informational needs of investors”.

And to justify it Schroeder “noted that in the four years before the crisis, loans held by banks in the US rose 45 per cent, while reserves set aside for losses fell 10 per cent. That meant that loan-loss reserves as a percentage of gross loans were near a multi-decade low on the eve of the Lehman collapse.”

But why was that? That was the result of banks increasing their exposures to what was perceived as safe, because of lower capital requirements, and lowering their exposures to what was perceived as risky, because of lower capital requirements… and then being surprised when “super-safe” AAA-rated securities, backed with “super-safe” residential housing mortgages, and loans to sovereigns decreed as “super-safe”, like Greece, turn out, ex post, un-expectedly, against probabilities, to be very risky.

Sir, what’s being done here, especially without eliminating the risk-weighted capital requirements, evidences that the regulators still don’t understand that they are not up against the expected, their real challenge is the unexpected. Since what is perceived as safe has much more potential of providing unpleasant surprises than what is perceived as risky, their regulations just makes the bank system more brittle and fragile.

And to top it up by discriminating against the risky they hinder the banking system from taking the risks the real economy needs to move forward.

We need our banks to work for all, not just for the banks, and for those perceived as safe.

We need our banks to finance the riskier future of our young, not just refinancing the safer past of their parents.

@PerKurowski ©