Central banks seem not able to tell their magic porridge pot to stop

Sir, Robert Armstrong, Oliver Ralph, and Eric Platt make a reference to the fairy tale of the magic porridge pot writing “Every working day, $100m rolls into Berkshire — cash from its subsidiaries, dividends from its shares, interest from its treasuries. Something must be done with it all. The porridge is starting to overrun the house.” “‘I have more fun than any 88-year-old in the world’” Life&Arts, April 27.

And the magic porridge pot fairy tale ends this way on Wikipedia: “At last when only one single house remained, the child came home and just said, "Stop, little pot," and it stopped and gave up cooking, and whosoever wished to return to the town had to eat their way back”

Sir, the excessive stimuli injected by means of QEs, fiscal deficits, ultra low interest rates and incestuous debt credit relations, like the 0% risk weighting of the sovereign that provides credit subsidies to who provides banks with deposit guarantees, or loans to houses increasing the price of houses allowing still more loans to houses, against very little capital… all of that is the porridge of our time.

And it’s clear central bankers everywhere, have no idea of how to tell their pot to stop.

Will we be able to eat our way back? Not without sweating it out a lot at the gym. You see too much porridge, meaning too much carbs, and too little proteins, meaning too little risk taking, produces an obese not muscular economy. 

@PerKurowski

If you finance “safe” consumption more than “risky” production, growth will come to a standstill.

John Dizard writes: “What if global income growth, or even national income growth, cannot cover the cost of servicing capital? Then the capital market machinery would have to shift into generating losses rather than returns.” “Bondholders face greater likelihood of haircuts as system goes into reverse” January 26.

Absolutely! When regulators decided that banks could hold less capital against the “safer” present than against the “riskier future”; meaning they could leverage more with the safer present than with the riskier future; meaning they would be able to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when financing the safer present than the riskier future, they ordained that to happen.

Basel II assigned a risk weight of 35% to residential mortgages, which on an 8% base capital signified a capital requirement of 2.8%, which signified an allowed leverage of 35.7 times.

Basel II assigned a risk weight of 100% to unrated entrepreneurs, which on an 8% base capital signified a capital requirement of 2.8%, which signified an allowed leverage of 12.5 times.

That allows banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity financing residential mortgages than giving loans to entrepreneurs.

The consequence? Many will sit in their houses without the jobs needed to service the mortgages or pay the utilities.

@PerKurowski

The crisis of modern liberalism is caused more by authoritarian besserwisser distortions than by market forces.

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau writes: Margaret Thatcher’s successful brand of entrepreneurial capitalism in the UK in the 1980s… Through the sale of council houses, she turned tenants into property owners.”, “The crisis of modern liberalism is down to market forces” December 25.

True, but later immense injections of liquidity, ultralow interest rates, and extreme preferential risk weighted capital requirements for banks when financing the purchase of houses, has helped turn houses from being just homes into being investment assets. That of course has left all those who do not own these investment assets, even further behind.

Therefore I cannot agree with Münchau’s conclusion that liberalism is failing because of market forces. At least in this case the distortions are not caused by market forces, but by regulators and central bankers who have insufficient idea about what they’re doing. Of course, if crony statism forms part of market forces, which perhaps de facto it sadly could be, then I would be wrong.

When Münchau finally opines, “Any system that leaves behind 60 per cent of households will eventually fail” that is not necessarily so. The world is plagued by examples by how such systems have too often proven to be even more resilient than those who do not. On a small model scale, just look at how Venezuela’s current regime has been able to hang on to power for at least a decade more than it should have been able to.

@PerKurowski

What has most made houses unaffordable for many is having made these artificially affordable for many.

Sir, John Dizard quotes and comments Robert Dietz, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders with: “Affordability is at a 10-year low.” It is not just the tariff-driven double-digit rise in the cost of wood. “We have suffered labour shortages for the past [few]years. Now the builders say that [land approved for building] is low.” “Bad news for housebuilding recovery as America loses its free lunch from world”, October 13.

That might bear some influence bit let us be very clear, what has most made houses unaffordable for many has been all that preferential financing to make house purchases affordable to many, which turned homes into investment assets and increased the prices of houses and the wealth of those who own houses.

For example, should banks have to hold the same capital against “safe” residential mortgages that they need to hold against loans to “risky” entrepreneurs house prices would be much lower...(PS. But there surely would be more jobs to help allow the purchase of houses at its lower prices)

Sir, a monstrous real estate crisis is being fabricated by regulators who can’t come to grips with the simple fact of life that if you blow too much credit into a market, you will create a bubble that, sooner or later, will explode L

@PerKurowski

Competition among banks is healthy for all, except when banks are allowed to compete on stratospheric capital leveraged heights.

Sir, Nicholas Megaw reports on some natural concerns derived from the fact that “Britain’s banks and building societies are loosening lending standards and cutting fees to maintain growth, as competition and a weakening housing market squeeze profit margins.” “UK banks loosen mortgage standards to maintain growth” August 26.

Competition among banks is always good, what were we borrowers to do without it? If as a result, some banks fail, so be it, and in fact that is quite necessary for the long-term health of the system. 

But when competition occurs where regulators allows too much leverage, because they also perceive it as very safe, then the very high exposures to the same class of assets, by many banks, can really explode and endanger the bank system.

So in conclusion, welcome the lowering of lending standards for loans to entrepreneurs that bank competition can bring about; but the capital requirements for banks when financing residential mortgages need to be increased, in order to make competition less dangerous. 

PS. Here is the somewhat extensive aide memoire on some of the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

@PerKurowski

Yes, cities can be great, but these can also be dangerous bombs in the making.

Sir, Edward Luce writes about how trying to attract big companies like Amazon to the cities might make it harder on the poor in the city. “Beauty contest reveals ugly truths” June 6.

Yes, of course, the weaker, the poorer, they will always be relatively more squeezed by any development that occurs in cramp conditions where there will be a fight for space.

But it is when Luce quotes Richard Florida with, “America’s most dynamic cities have played right into the company’s hands, rushing to subsidise one of the world’s largest corporations rather than building up their own economic capacities.” where the real discussion should start.

Why would a city want to bet so much of its future on so few actors as would here be the case with Amazon? Have they not seen what happened to Motor City Detroit? If you want to use incentives to attract jobs, which is of course to start “a race to the bottom”, why bet all on a number, would you not be better off diversifying your bets? 

If I was responsible for a city, one of the first things I would be doing is to analyze how its riskiness would be rated compared to other cities? For instance, what are the chances that suddenly another city offers your city’s wealthy, the possibility of moving to a place that has not accumulated impossibly high debts that will need to be served, supposedly primarily by them?

And, if your city faces a financial crash, what would be ones’ first priorities, to help the poor, or to make sure the rich do not leave without being substituted for by other rich?

PS. Luce writes: “Big fund managers… are putting cash into global urban real estate portfolios. As a result, property prices are becoming a function of global capital movements rather than local economic conditions”

Again, for the umpteenth time, what initially feeds high property prices is the inordinate ease of access to financing it, provided among others by regulators allowing banks to leverage much more with “safe” residential mortgages than with “risky” loans to entrepreneurs. 

The fund managers are just following the results of it… when that regulation-easing plan begins to be reversed, which will happen sooner or later, they run the risk of being left holding the bag. 

@PerKurowski

Few things are as risky as letting besserwisser technocrats operate on their own, without adult supervision.

Sir, Martin Wolf when discussing Mariana Mazzucato’s “The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy” writes: “In her enthusiasm for the potential role of the state, the author significantly underplays the significant dangers of governmental incompetence and corruption.” “A question of value” April 28.

Indeed. Let me, for the umpteenth time, refer to those odiously stupid risk weighted capital requirements that the Basel Committee and their regulating colleagues imposed on our banks.

Had not residential mortgages been risk-weighted 55% in 1988 and 35% in 2004 while loans to unrated entrepreneurs had to carry a 100% risk weights, the “funded zero-sum competition to buy the existing housing stock at soaring prices” would not have happened.

Had not assets, just because they were given an AAA rating by human fallible credit rating agencies, been risk-weighted only 20%, which with Basel II meant banks could leverage 62.5 times, the whole subprime crisis would not have happened.

Had not Basel II assigned a sovereign then rated like Greece a 20% risk weight, and made worse by European central bankers reducing it to 0%, as it would otherwise look unfair, the Greek tragedy would only be a minor fraction of what happened.

Had not bank regulators intruded our banks would still prefer savvy loan officers over creative equity minimizers.

Had not regulators allowed banks to hold so little equity there would not have been so much extracted value left over to feed the bankers’ bonuses.

Having previously observed Mariana Mazzucato’s love and admiration for big governments, who knows she might even have been a Hugo Chavez fan, I am not surprised she ignores these inconvenient facts. But, for Martin Wolf to keep on minimizing the distortion, that is a totally different issue. 

The US public debt is certainly the financial risk with the fattest tail risk. It was risk weighted 0% in 1988, when its level was $2.6tn. Now it is $21tn, growing and still 0% risk weighted… and so seemingly doomed to become 100% risky. Are we not already helping governments way too much?

@PerKurowski

The Basel Committee’s tariffs of 35% risk weight on residential mortgages and 100% on loans to entrepreneurs, is pure protectionism.

Sir, Martin Wolf, with respect to President Trumps’ indication that “he would sign an order this week imposing global tariffs of 25 per cent on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum” writes “This is a purely protectionist policy aimed at saving old industries” “Trump’s follies presage more protectionism” March7.

Absolutely! I could not agree more. But what I cannot understand is why Wolf does not react in the same way against the protectionism imbedded in the bank regulators’ risk weights? For instance is not a 35% risk weight on residential mortgages and of 100% risk weight on loans to entrepreneurs represent even a worse protectionism than Trump’s?

That protectionism allows banks to leverage their capital 35.7 times with residential mortgages and only 12.5 times with loans to entrepreneurs.

That protectionism has banks avoiding financing the "riskier" future in order to refinance the older "safer present". Does that not sound extremely dangerous?

PS. And a 0% risk weight of the sovereign and 100% the citizens, is that not the mother of protection of statism?

@PerKurowski

More food for the hungry and less food for the less hungry sounds logical and decent, that is unless the hungry are obese and the less hungry anorexic.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “More equity capital would make banks less fragile.” “Fix the roof while the sun is shining” December 6.

That is only true as long as we get rid of the distorting risk weighted capital requirements for banks. Though “more risk more capital - less risk less capital” sounds logical, that is unless “The Safe” get too much credit and “The Risky” too little. If that happens, both banks and the economy will end up more fragile.

Wolf writes: “The world economy is enjoying a synchronised recovery. But it will prove unsustainable if investment does not pick up, especially in high-income economies. Debt mountains also threaten the recovery’s sustainability”. Let me comment on that this way:

First: “a synchronised recovery” is a way to generous description of what is mostly a QE high that has just helped kick the crisis can down the road.

Second: The investments most lacking in the “unsustainable if investment does not pick up” part, is that of entrepreneurs and SMEs, those which have seen their access to bank credit curtailed by regulators. It is high time we leave the safer but riskier present and get back to the riskier but safer future.

Third: The “Debt mountains [that] threaten” are either those for which regulators allow banks to hold much less capital against, like sovereigns and residential mortgages; or those consumer credits at high interest rates that dangerously anticipate consumption and leaves us open to future problems.

Sir, let me again make a comment on Wolf’s recurrent recommendation of “Public investment to improve infrastructure”. He usually argues this in order to take advantage of the very low interest rates. That ignores that those low rates are not real rates but regulatory subsidized rates. If banks had to hold the same capital against loans to sovereign than against loans to citizens, and if also central banks refrained from additional QEs, I guarantee that the interest rates on public debt would be much higher.

Besides, given the fast technological advances, we do not even know what infrastructure will be so much needed in the future so as to be able to repay the loans, instead of just burdening more our grandchildren.

@PerKurowski

The “risk” appetite that caused the 2007-08 crisis was for AAA-rated securities, residential mortgages and sovereigns.

Sir, Laura Noonan quotes Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane with: “I think the risk culture, not just from the regulator but from financial firms, is much different [than before the crisis], the risk appetite is much diminished.” “WEF group issues urgent call for fintech forum” April 19.

What risk appetite before the crisis? Was there any excessive exposure to something that was not perceived, decreed or concocted as safe? No, of course not!

In Basel II regulators assigned a 35 percent risk weight to residential mortgages; AAA-rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector carried a 20 percent risk weight; and the risk weight for sovereigns rated like Greece, hovered between 0 and 20 percent.

Now, soon a decade later, regulators seemingly still think that ex post realities and ex ante perceptions are the equivalent. They keep on thinking that the expected is a good basis for estimating directly the unexpected.

The worse risk to a banking system derives from excessive exposures; and those excessive exposures are always built up with something ex ante perceived as safe… but which ex post could perhaps be risky. And that is currently made much worse, by the fact that those “safe exposures” require the banks to hold the least capital.

So NO, in terms of dangerous excessive exposures to “the safe” I would, contrary to Haldane, hold that the real appetite for real bank risk has not stopped growing for a second, it has even accelerated. 

Sir, again, for the umpteenth time, in Basel II the regulators set a 150 percent risk weight for assets rated below BB-. How on earth can anyone justify that assets that when booked carry a below BB- rating, are riskier for the banks than all other 100 percent and below risk weighted assets?

And how is it that, even after the evidence of the 2007-08 crisis, they still believe so? It is mind-boggling to me… and it should be to you too Sir.

Something is truly rotten in that mutual admiration club we know as the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision.

@PerKurowski ©