The risk weighted bank capital requirements, is just a lean and mean “regression to the mean” machine.

Sir, Tim Harford when discussing luck and reversal of fortunes, holds that genius followed by mediocrity [is] likely a “regression to the mean”, or in simple terms, a return to business as usual. “It can be hard to discern luck from judgment” May 25.

Indeed, but sometimes that reversal to the mean, has nothing to do with such mystical issues as luck, but is a direct consequence of a distortion. 

As I have often written to FT about, allowing banks regulatory privileges when financing what’s perceived as safe, like sovereigns or houses, will result in too much financing of the safe, which will cause “the safe”, sooner or later to revert to become very risky.

In the same vein, those who without correcting for a crisis are now considered triumphant, like ECB’s Mario Draghi, only because they’ve managed to kick a crisis-can forward, will one day be held much accountable, when that crisis can rolls back on some, as it sure must.

@PerKurowski

“Regression to the mean” is one of the reasons the current risk weighted capital requirements for banks are loony.

Sir, Tim Harford writes: “for statistical reasons, outstanding performances tend to be followed by something less impressive. This is because most performances involve some randomness. On any given day, the worst observed outcomes will be incompetents having an unlucky day and the best observed outcomes will be stars having a lucky day. Observe the same group on another day and, because luck rarely lasts, the former outliers will not be quite as bad, or as good, as at first they seemed. This phenomenon is called “regression to the mean”. “Reversals of fortune have random roots” April 22.

And yet Sir, our dear undercover economist finds it so hard to understand how loony current risk weighted capital requirements for banks really are.

Perhaps he might be interested in what I reflected on when reading Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, fast and slow”

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2013/12/understanding-how-come-of-so-loony-bank.html

@PerKurowski

“Regression to the mean”, if allowed by politicians and regulators, will take care of the plutocrats, in due time.

Sir, Paul Marshall in “Blame the rise of the plutocrats on politics not capitalism”, January 9, holds that we need Schumpeter much more than Marx.

As you could deduct from my letter “Long-term benefits of hard landing” and which you kindly published, before you decided to name me a persona non-grata at FT, I totally agree with him

I have never been too much concerned by the rise of plutocrats, since I have always figured that, mostly, it was the result of something good… and I have always counted on the “regression toward the mean” theory, aka “reversion to the mean”, or aka “reversion to mediocrity”, to take care of the problem of the same plutocrats reigning into eternity.

But for that “regression to the mean” to happen, anyone that has that in him to be a plutocrat needs to be able to become a plutocrat… and that requires not only fair access to education as Marshall rightly puts forward, but almost foremost fair access to bank credit. And credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks which operate in favor of those who have made it; and against those risky who have yet not made it, and who probably most of them will fail while trying to make it; blocks that fair access to bank credit.

And then of course, for the “regression to the mean” to happen, losses need to flow freely, and not be contained by QE dams, which quite often help to make the plutocrats even more plutocrats.

PS. There are some other issues related to the rise of plutocrats that need to be more closely looked into. One is intellectual property right. Why should income from a shielded property right be taxed at the same rate than those profits coming from competing bare-naked in the market?