When bank regulators allowed banks to earn higher returns on equity by avoiding the “risky”, they violated a fundamental social contract

Sir, you write “Unemployment rates are low in the UK and US, but many of the new jobs are more precarious than the old ones they replaced… [so] the US and EU need to do more to encourage investment, and to deter anti-competitive behaviour and, as important, encourage competitive pressure on complacent incumbents.” “A better deal between business and society” January 2.

If one allowed banks to leverage more, and thereby obtain higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to what is perceived safe, than when lending to what is perceived risky, it would require ignorance, or total lack of concern, to believe banks will finance as much as usual small unrated companies and new entreprenuers.

But that is what regulators with their risk weighted capital requirements did and so it should be no surprise that “Despite low financing costs, private investment — the vital seed for long-term growth — remains insipid.” I am not talking about an “out-of-date regulatory models” that could be reformed, but about a fundamentally mistaken regulatory model.

You want “A better social contract… built on the idea of a humane, mutually beneficial interdependence between” employers and employees. Sir, who could argue against that? There’s always room for that.

But, how many times have I begged you to put the weight of the Financial Times behind asking the regulators: “Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what has been made innocous by being perceived risky, than against what is dangerous because it is perceived safe?”

But for some internal reasons of your own, perhaps even a petty one, you have refused to do so. In my book, just like when regulators regulated banks without caring about the purpose of these violated a social contract, you also violate your social responsibility as journalists by not intermediating opinions between your readers and those officially responsible for the decisions being questioned.

@PerKurowski

Imposing on banks risk aversion more suitable to older than younger, regulators violated Edmund Burke’s holy intergenerational social contract

Vanessa Houlder when writing about Richard Thaler’s ‘nudge’ theory and how our hatred of losses affects risk taking mentions: “Investing in a portfolio tilted towards equities makes sense for the young, although — given that share prices can drop dramatically — the proportion should be reduced as people near retirement, according to Thaler.” “Be lazy, the first rule of investing” December 23.

Sir, that refers precisely to something on which I have written to you hundred of letters over the years.

Regulators, with their risk-weighted capital requirements, by allowing banks to hold less capital against what is perceived as “safe”, like mortgages, than against what is perceived as “risky”, like loans to entrepreneurs, they allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on what’s perceived safe than on what’s perceived risky.

With it regulators top up the natural risk aversion of bankers with their own one, and by there doom banks to primarily work in the interest of the older and against those of the young. That, phrased in Edmund Burke’s terms, is a shameful breach of the holy intergenerational social contract that should guide our lives. How our society has managed to turn a blind eye on this makes me, a grandfather, very disappointed and sad.

But all that risk aversion is also so totally useless. Major bank crisis never ever result from excessive exposures to what has ex ante been perceived as risky; but always because of unexpected events or excessive exposures to what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe but then turned out to be risky, like AAA rated securities backed by mortgages awarded to the subprime sector and loans to sovereigns like Greece.

PS. It would be great if Vanessa Houlder could ask Richard Thaler why he thinks regulators want banks to hold more capital against what perceived as risky is made innocous than against what is perceived as safe is therefore intrinsically more dangerous? My own explanation is that they mistook the ex ante perceived risk of bank assets for being the ex post risks for banks.

@PerKurowski

If you allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity on mortgage lending than when lending to entrepreneurs, bad things will sure ensue

Sir, Jonathan Eley writes: “in the UK…younger people especially are being priced out of the market while their parents and grandparents benefit from decades of above-inflation rises in home values. The ruling Conservatives, traditionally the party of home ownership, now finds itself shunned by millennial voters frustrated by spiralling housing costs” “Why Budget fix will not repair market” November 21.

And among the long list of factors that has distorted the market in favor of houses Eley includes: “Mortgage securitisation facilitated further growth, as did the Basel II reforms cutting the risk weights applied to real estate. This made mortgage lending less capital-intensive for banks.”

This Sir is one of the very few recognitions, by FT journalists, of the fact that risk weighting the capital requirements for banks distorts the allocation of bank credit.

Indeed, Basel I in 1988 assigned a risk weight of 50% to loans fully secured by mortgage on residential property that is rented or is (or is intended to be) occupied by the borrower, and Basel II reduced that to 35%. Both Basel I and II assigned a risk weight of 100% to loans to unrated SMEs or entrepreneurs.

But the real bottom line significance of “mortgage lending [being] less capital-intensive for banks”, is that banks when being allowed to leverage more with mortgages than with loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity with mortgages than with loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, and will therefore finance houses much much more than SMEs and entrepreneurs, than what they would have done in the absence of this distortion.

As I have written to you in many occasion before, this “causes banks to finance the basements where the kids can live with their parents, but not the necessary job creation required for the kids to be able to become themselves parents in the future.”

And the day the young will look up from their IPhones, and understand what has happened, they could/should become very angry with those regulators that so brazenly violated that holy intergenerational social bond Edmund Burke wrote about.

I can almost hear many millennials some years down the road telling (yelling) their parents “You go down to the basement, it’s now our turn to live upstairs!”

Eley also quotes Greg Davies, a behavioural economist with: “People like houses as an investment because they are tangible. They feel they understand them far more than funds or shares or bonds.”

But the real measurement of the worth of any investment happens the moment you want to convert it into current purchase capacity. In this respect people should think about to whom they could sell their house in the future, at its current real prices.

PS. In June 2017 you published a letter by Chris Watling that refers exactly to this, “Blame Basel capital rules for the UK’s house price bonanza”.

What most surprises me is that regulators don’t even acknowledge they distort, much less discuss it… and that the Financial Times refuses to call the regulators out on this… especially since all that distortion is for no stability purpose at all, much the contrary.

It is clear that no matter its motto of “Without fear and without favor”, FT does not have what it takes to for instance ask Mark Carney of BoE and FSB, to explain the reasoning behind Basel II’s meager risk weight of only 20% to the so dangerous AAA rated and its whopping 150% to the so innocous below BB- rated.

@PerKurowski

If Venezuela’s social compact shared out all oil revenues directly to citizens, it would better resist lower oil prices

Sir, with respect to the possibilities of lower oil prices you write: “The real dangers… lie in emerging markets that rely heavily on oil exports and have large young and restive populations. Austerity will strain the social compact between rulers and ruled in the Gulf states. It will inflame existing conflicts in Nigeria and Venezuela.” “A sustained oil glut can have unsettling effects” June 23.

No! To refer to lower prices inflaming conflict in Venezuela is to ignore the true origins of the problem. The higher the oil prices the less do oil-regimes take notice of citizens… when oil revenues are large the citizens are mostly a nuisance to those in power… and the citizen’s mind-frame is set on how to get the largest share possible out of those revenues. That only guarantees a rotten to the core social compact. That only guarantees that sooner or later the nation fall into the hand of rotten to the core regimes, like the current one.

So in fact lower oil prices could help is it forces real changes. For instance if the net oil revenues were shared equally among all Venezuela’s citizens, we would have a much better and sustainable social compact. Not only because the real source of needed austerity would be more easily identified, but also because the decisions of millions about what to do with their share of the oil revenues, responding to their private and individual needs, would allocate resources more efficiently than what the well-intentioned or dark interests of some few would do.

Venezuela has the immediate need to get rid of its current government. But when that happens, then, immediately, its immediate interest becomes how to rebuild a devastated nation… before the next conflict breaks out. Nothing better than to completely rearrange how the natural resources not produced by granted to Venezuela by the providence is shared.

PS. Britain too would do better sharing out all revenues derived from taxes on petrol equally to all its citizens.

@PerKurowski

http://theoilcurse.blogspot.com

http://petropolitan.blogspot.com

Stealing and rent seeking has nothing to do with “social contracts”

Sir, your reporters, on the issue of fuel subsidies, April 19, wrote: “For oil producers such as Venezuela… fuel subsidies are part of the social contract and relatively manageable.”

Venezuela sell’s its gasoline locally for less than 2 US$ cents per liter. Your reporters should never ever confuse blind and irresponsible rent seeking by which, those in power, usually with cars, rob the implicit value of the petrol or gasoline, from those poor and not in power, usually without cars, with any type or form of “social contract”.