FT, on banking and finance who are you to believe, Francis Fukuyama or Paul Volcker?

Sir, Francis Fukuyama in “The war on liberalism” FT March 5, writes:

“Liberals understand the importance of free markets — but under the influence of economists such as Milton Friedman and the “Chicago School”, the market was worshipped and the state increasingly demonised as the enemy of economic growth and individual freedom. Advanced democracies under the spell of neoliberal ideas trimmed back welfare states and regulation, and advised developing countries to do the same under the “Washington Consensus”. Cuts to social spending and state sectors removed the buffers that protected individuals from market vagaries, leading to big increases in inequality over the past two generations.

While some of this retrenchment was justified, it was carried to extremes and led, for example, to deregulation of US financial markets in the 1980s and 1990s that destabilised them and brought on financial crises such as the subprime meltdown in 2008.”

Paul A. Volcker in his autobiography “Keeping at it” of 2018, penned together with Christine Harper, with respect to the risk weighted bank capital requirements he helped to promote and which were approved in 1988 under the name of Basel I wrote:

“The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages. Ironically, losses on those two types of assets would fuel the global crisis in 2008 and a subsequent European crisis in 2011. The American “overall leverage” approach had a disadvantage as well in the eyes of shareholders and executives focused on return on capital; it seemed to discourage holdings of the safest assets, in particular low-return US government securities."

Sir, in reference to advising developing countries with the “Washington Consensus”, in November 2004 you kindly published a letter in which I wrote:

“Our bank supervisors in Basel are unwittingly controlling the capital flows in the world. How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector? In some developing countries, access to credit for the private sector is all but gone, and the banks are up to the hilt in public credits.”

So, there are two completely different bank systems:

Before 1988, one in which banks needed to hold the same capital against all assets, credit was allocated based on risk adjusted interest rates and the market considering the bank’s portfolio, accurately or not, values its capital.

After 1988, one risk weighted capital requirement banks where credit is allocated based on risk adjusted returns on equity, something which clearly depends on how much regulators have allowed their capital to be leveraged with each asset... clearly favoring government credit, which de facto implies bureaucrats know better what to do with (taxpayers') credit than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs. Communism!

Sir, I am of course just small fry, not even a PhD, but, if you have to choose between describing what has happened in the financial markets since 1988 as a “deregulation”, as Fukuyama opines, or an absolute statist and politically influenced misregulation, as Volcker valiantly confesses, who do you believe?

Sir, is this topic taboo… or just a too hot potato for the “Without fear and without favour” Financial Times?

PS. In Steven Solomon’s “The Confidence Game” 1995 we read: “On September 2, 1986, the fine cutlery was laid once again at the Bank of England governor’s official residence at New Change… The occasion was an impromptu visit from Paul Volcker… When the Fed chairman sat down with Governor Robin Leigh-Pemberton and three senior BoE officials, the topic he raised was bank capital…”

@PerKurowski

Compared to more than three decades ago, what is the current leverage ratio of our banks?

Sir, Martin Wolf, in FT on July 12, 2012, in “Seven ways to clean up our banking ‘cesspit’” opined: “Banks need far more equity: In setting these equity requirements, it is essential to recognize that so-called “risk-weighted” assets can and will be gamed by both banks and regulators. As Per Kurowski, a former executive director of the World Bank, reminds me regularly, crises occur when what was thought to be low risk turns out to be very high risk. For this reason, unweighted leverage matters. It needs to be far lower.”Soon a decade since, are bank capital requirements much higher and really sufficient?

No! Though bank capital requirements are mostly needed as a buffer against the certainty of misperceived credit risks & unexpected events, in this uncertain world, these are by far, still mostly based on the certainty of the perceived credit risks.

Consequently, when times are rosy, regulators allow banks: to lend dangerously much to what’s perceived as very safe; to hold much less capital; to do more stock buybacks and to pay more dividends & bonuses. Therefore, banks will stand there naked, when most needed. 

The leverage ratio is also important because it includes as assets, loans to governments at face value, and thereby makes it harder for excessive public bank borrowers to hide behind Basel I’s risk weights of 0% government, 100% citizens. No matter how safe the government might be, those weights de facto imply bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they’re not personally responsible for than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs.

November 19, 2004, in a letter you published I wrote: “Our bank supervisors in Basel are unwittingly controlling the capital flows in the world. How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector?” That this factor, in the face of huge government indebtedness, is not even discussed, as I see it can only be explained by too much inbred statism.

Before the Basel Committee Accord became operative in 1988, Basel I, banks were generally required to hold about 10 percent of capital against all assets, meaning a leverage ratio of 10.

Where do banks find themselves now? I know well it’s hard, and extremely time consuming, to make tails and heads out of current bank statements, but I’m absolutely sure most financial media, if they only dared and wanted, have the capacity to extract that information.

Should not such basic/vital data be readily available and perhaps even appear on front pages? It’s not! Why? Has media been silenced by capital minimizing/leverage maximizing dangerously creative financial engineers?

Sir, I’m not picking especially on financial journalists, the silence of the Academia, especially the tenured one, is so much worse.

@PerKurowski

Spurn bank regulators' false promises.

Sir, Martin Wolf makes a good case for “We should not throw liberal trade away for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way”, “Spurn the false promise of protectionism” FT June 16.

Yet, when regulators, decades ago, decided to throw liberal access to bank credit, by imposing credit risk weighted bank capital requirements, something which completely distorted the access to bank credit, Wolf and 99.99 percent of those who should have spoken up, kept mum.

Though I’ve no idea whether they read it, in a 2019 letter I wrote to the Executive Directors and Staff of the International Monetary Fund, I argued that these risk weights are to access to credit, precisely what tariffs are to trade, adding “only more pernicious” 

Wolf writes that “the US economy has suffered from high and rising inequality and a poor labour force performance” and includes among other explanations the “rent-extracting behaviour throughout the economy”

But anyone who reads “Keeping at it” 2018 in which Paul Volcker’s 2018 valiantly confessed: “The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which bank capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages”, should be able to understand that rent-extraction also occurs by means of cheaper and more abundant access to credit.

And boy did regulators throw away unencumbered access to credit in “the wrong way”

Here follows four examples: 

To establish their risk weights, they used the perceived credit risks, what’s seen “under the street light” while, of course, they should have used the risks for banks conditioned on how credit risks were perceived. 

By allowing banks, when the outlook was rosy, to hold little capital, meaning paying high dividends, lots of share buy backs, and huge bonuses, they placed business cycles on steroids.

Very little of their capital requirements cover misperceived credit risks or unexpected events. Therefore, just as in 2008 with the collapse of AAA rated mortgage back securities, and now with a pandemic, banks were doomed to stand there with their pants down.

With risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% the citizens, which de facto imply bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they’re not personally responsible for than e.g., entrepreneurs, they smuggled communism/statism/fascism into our banking system.

“We will make your bank systems safe with our credit risk weighted bank capital requirements” Sir, what amount of wishful thinking must have existed for the world, its Academia included, to so naively have fallen for the hubristic promises of some technocrats.

@PerKurowski

The “Parable of talents” is currently quite inapplicable to any wealth tax.

Sir, I refer to “Why the toughest capitalists should root for a wealth tax” Martin Sandbu, FT, May 10.

Much of the current wealth is the direct result of huge liquidity injections, and which are distorted by risk weighted bank capital requirements that, among other, so much favors the debts of the government over debts to the citizens… all as if bureaucrats/politicians know better what to do with credit for which repayment they are not personally responsible for, than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs.

To favor such wealth tax, besides removing such distortions, I would also like to know what assets, and to whom, the wealthy should sell in order to raise the money to pay such taxes… and what would be the resulting overall productivity of such resource transfer. I believe a full review of the current productivity of all government spending is long overdue.

So, in this respect, taxing wealth with its revenues seemingly not being sufficiently productive, an understatement, sort of reminds me of a Harry Belafonte & Odetta song titled A hole in the Bucket

Sandbu also writes that “a net wealth tax…is the tax version of the New Testament’s parable of the talents” I’m not at all sure that’s currently really so.

I extract the following from Matthew 25: 24-27: 24 “Master,’ 25 I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. 26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So, you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned, I would have received it back with interest.”

First, we now have regulators who, with bank capital requirements, tell banks that when they scatter and sow, they should be risk averse, guarding it all in safe gold, e.g., loans to governments and residential mortgages; staying away from what’s risky, e.g., entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Second, to top that up, with QEs central banks are injecting money thereby keeping interest rates ultra-low.

So, are we allowing bankers to exploit their talents? No! 

Will that produce good interest rates for the depositors? No! 

And if inflation takes off, will they receive their real money back? No!

Sir, with respect to risk taking, and even though I am a protestant, let me finally quote Pope John Paul II: Our hearts ring out with the words of Jesus when one day, after speaking to the crowds from Simon's boat, he invited the Apostle to "put out into the deep" for a catch: "Duc in altum" (Lk 5:4). Peter and his first companions trusted Christ's words, and cast the nets. "When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish" (Lk 5:6).

Has Thatcherism run its course, or has Thatcherism been run off its course?

Sir, Martin Wolf asks “once we accept that Thatcherism has run its course, what follows?” “Sunak takes an axe to Thatcher’s low-tax ideology” FT, March 8.

Sir, to keep it brief, let me just ask three questions:

What would Margaret Thatcher have said about risk weighted bank capital requirements that de facto imply Britain’s bureaucrats/politicians know better what to do with credit for which repayment they’re not personally responsible for, than e.g. Britain’s small businesses and entrepreneurs?

What would Margaret Thatcher have said about risk weighted bank capital requirements that de facto imply the financing of residential mortgages is more important to Britain’s economy than the financing of its small businesses and entrepreneurs?

What would Margaret Thatcher have said about risk weighted bank capital requirements that de facto imply that what’s correctly perceived as risky, is more dangerous to Britain’s bank systems than what’s perceived as safe?

Sir, can you dare your Mr. Wolf to answer those questions?

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board

@PerKurowski

What America (and much of the rest of the world) needs is to free itself from the clutches of statist/communist bank regulators.

Sir, Martin Wolf, opines that “Joe Biden may be a last chance for US democracy” “Competency is Biden’s best strategy” January 27. 

Oh, if only all was that easy and in Biden’s hands. When compared to what some dark hands through bank regulations are doing to America (and to much of the world), both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are small fry.

Paul Volcker in his 2018 autography “Keeping at it” wrote: “The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages”. Volcker continued with “Ironically, losses on those two types of assets would fuel the global crisis in 2008 and a subsequent European crisis in 2011”. That compared to all other that has been said about and quoted from Paul Volcker, has been totally ignored, or outright censored. 

But what does it really mean?

Lower bank capital requirements when lending to the government than when lending to citizens, de facto implies bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they’re not personally responsible for than e.g. entrepreneurs. 

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing the central government than when financing local governments, de facto implies federal bureaucrats know much better what to do with credit than local bureaucrats.

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing residential mortgages, de facto implies that those buying a house are more important for the economy than, e.g. small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Lower bank capital requirements for banks when financing the “safer” present than when financing the “riskier” future, de facto implies placing a reverse mortgage on the current economy and giving up on our grandchildren’s future.

Sir, I just ask, would America have even remotely become the great land it is, if that kind of risk adverse bank regulations had welcomed the immigrants when arriving at Ellis Island / Liberty Island... to the Home of the Brave?

Wolf also uses new-confirmed Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, to endorse what he himself have argued so many times namely: “With interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big” Again, where would those historic low rated be without the Fed’s QEs and without the regulatory favors mentioned? Really? Historic lows or historical communist subsidies?

PS. Not the first time (nor probably the last) I've written to Martin Wolf on this.

@PerKurowski

Does Martin Wolf’s “The tragedy of two failing superpowers” conform with FT’s beautiful motto of “without favour”?

Wolf opines about Donald Trump in terms of “a malevolent incompetent” and for this looks for the support of that totally unbiased Jeffrey Sachs who writes about “devastatingly of the ill will and ineffectiveness on display”. “The tragedy of two failing superpowers” April 1.

Sir, if this is what it comes down to, let me be clear that I much prefer the support of a highly incompetent but more principled Donald Trump, against our evidently thousand times more malevolent incompetents, like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, than the support given to them by “extremely competent” Barack Obama and Jeffrey Sachs.

Wolf then writes: “For those of us who believe in liberal democracy” Really? Are we to believe that anyone who, for purposes of bank capital requirements, agrees with assigning a risk weight of 0% to his sovereign’s debt and 100% to fellow citizen’s debts, something which de facto implies that bureaucrats knows better what to do with credits for which’s repayment they're not personally responsible for than for example entrepreneurs, could be defined as a believer in a liberal democracy? I don’t think so, to me he would just be a disguised communist.

@PerKurowski

Sovereign borrowings are never “for free”. There are always opportunity costs, especially when there’s so much distortion favoring it.

Sir, you hold that “Fiscal stimulus can relieve monetary policy if invested wisely” “Governments must learn to love borrowing again” December 9.

“If invested wisely”, what a caveat, but so could private borrowing and investment help do. That is if they were allowed to access bank credit in a non-discriminatory way. As is much lower statist bank capital requirements when lending to the sovereign, has banks basically doing QEs acquiring sovereign debt, and this also implies bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they’re not personally responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs.

It surprises when you state: “Central banks should not be blamed for loose monetary policy. As long as governments are not willing to expand on the fiscal side, central bankers are legally obliged to make up the shortfall in demand support” Legally obliged? Are you constructing a defense for all those failed central bankers that FT has so much helped to egg on? Because, as you yourself argue, “ultra-loose monetary policy has inflated asset prices and may be slowing productivity growth by keeping uneconomic businesses alive”, they sure have failed.

I also find it shameful to argue: “When governments can borrow for free there is little reason not to invest to the hilt.” What “for free”? The current low cost of government borrowing is the direct result of QEs and regulatory discrimination against other bank borrowers, and that distortion results in huge opportunity costs for the society. Also each new public debt contracted eats up a part of that borrowing capacity at a reasonable cost, which is an asset that should not be squandered away. Reading this editorial, which in summary begs for kicking the crisis can forward by any available means, makes me feel inclined to suspect you have no grandchildren.

Sir, finally, with governments borrowing to tackle “green transition challenges” you are opening up great opportunities for climate change profiteers, which will be exploited, you can bet on that. The more concerned you are with climate change the more concerned you should be with keeping all climate-change-fight financial/political profiteers far away. If not we will not be able to afford the fight against climate change, or to help mitigate its consequences.

Financial communism... that's what we have

@PerKurowski

Bank regulators rigged capitalism in favor of the state and the “safer” present and against the “riskier” future.

Sir, Martin Wolf with respect to needed financial sector reforms mentions “Radical solution: raise the capital requirements of banking intermediaries substantially, while reducing prescriptive interventions; and, crucially, eliminate the tax-deductibility of interest, so putting debt finance on a par with equity.” “How to reform today’s rigged capitalism” December 4.

What has rigged capitalism the most during the last decades is the introduction of risk weighted bank capital requirements which rigs the allocation of credit in favor of the sovereign and that which is perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, and against the credit needed to finance the riskier future, like SMEs and entrepreneurs.

That distortion is no eliminated with general higher capital requirements like the leverage ratio introduced with Basel III, but only by totally eliminating the credit risk weighting.

Wolf expresses great concern “over the role of money in politics and way the media works” I agree. The reason why media in general, and FT in particular, have refused to denounce the stupidity with credit risk weighted bank capital requirements based on that what bankers perceive risky being more dangerous to our bank systems than what bankers perceive safe, is most probably not wanting to trample on bankers’ toes. As is, bankers are allowed to leverage the most; to earn the highest risk adjusted return on equity, on what they think safe. Is that not a bankers dream come true? As is, we are facing the dangerous overpopulation by banks of all safe havens, while the rest of us are then forced out to the risky oceans in search of any returns. 

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A. Shedd.

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/10/please-free-us-from-imprudent-risk.html

@PerKurowski

Beware when issues, no matter how important, like climate change, become mostly discussed because of their distraction value

Sir, Martin Wolf, after taking on a history tour argues: “A positive-sum vision of relations between the west, China and the rest has to become dominant if we are to manage the economic, security and environmental challenges we face”. That said Wolf frets our chances our small “given the quality of western leadership, authoritarianism in China and rising tide of mutual suspicion”, “Unsettling precedents for today’s world”, November 27.

Indeed, use history to illuminate the present, but never allow it to hide it. In the same vein let’s also include the caveat of not using any of those challenges to distract us from other just as important issues, like the very delicate state of our financial system.

Consider the following facts: 

1. As a response to the 2008 (AAA securities) and the 2011 (Greece) crises, by means of QEs and similar, there were/are huge injections of liquidity. 

2. Since the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements were not eliminated, our banks have dangerously overcrowded all “safe” harbors, like sovereigns and residential mortgages.

3. As a result the rest of market participants had to take to the risky oceans like highly leveraged corporates debts and lending to emerging countries.

4. To top it up plenty of other high debt exposures abound, e.g. student and credit card debts.

5. Finally there are huge unfunded social security and pension plans all around the world.

And I refer to ”distraction” because everywhere we turn, we find regulators and central banks frantically looking for excuses to talk about other things, so as not have to answer some basic questions like:

Why do you believe that what bankers perceive as risky, is more dangerous to our bank system than what bankers perceive as safe?

Do you understand that allowing banks to leverage differently different assets distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy?

Do you understand that the other side of the coin of decreeing a zero risk to sovereigns, just because they can print the money to repay, is that it implies bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they are not responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs?

EU you assigned a zero risk to all eurozone sovereigns’ debts even though none of these can print euros. What do you think would have happened to the USA’s union, if it had done the same with its 50 states, even though none of these can print US$ on their own?

Sir, when an architect takes on a project, he usually signs a contract by which he assumes personal responsibility “for the facility and its systems' ability to function and perform in the manner and to the extent intended” Should not bank regulators sign similar contracts?

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/architect-responsibilities-and-disputes

@PerKurowski

For capitalism to refunction, first get rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements.

Sir, Martin Wolf quotes HL Mencken with “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” “Saving capitalism from the rentiers” September 18.

Indeed, and the most populist, simplistic and wrong answer to how our banks should function, are the risk weighted bank capital requirements. These are naively based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe; and, with risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% the citizens, de facto also based on that bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they are not personally responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs.

And so when that what’s “super-safe”, like AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime U.S. sector exploded in 2008, this distorted bank credit mechanism, wasted away the immense amount of liquidity that were injected, creating asset bubbles, morphing houses from being homes into being investments assets, paying dividends and buying back shares.

“Tall trees deprive saplings of the light they need to grow. So, too, may giant companies”? Yes Mr Wolf, but so too does these stupid bank regulations.

“A capitalism rigged to favour a small elite” Yes Mr Wolf, but that small elite is not all private sector. The difference between the free market interest rates on sovereign debt that would exist absent regulatory subsidies and central bank purchases, and current ultra low or even negative rates, is just a non-transparent statist tax, paid by those who invest in such debt.

“We need a dynamic capitalist economy that gives everybody a justified belief that they can share in the benefits.” Yes Mr Wolf, but that should start by getting rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements, so that banks ask savvy loan officers to return, in order to substitute for the current equity minimizing financial engineers.

“Corporate lobbying overwhelms the interests of ordinary citizens” Yes Mr Wolf, but silencing the criticism of current bank regulations could also be the result of some journalists having been effectively lobbied. Or not?

"Capitalism"? No Mr. Wolf, what we really have is Crony Statism

My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board
My 2019 letter to the IMF

@PerKurowski

How can Eurozone’s sovereigns’ debts, not denominated in their own national/printable fiat currency, be considered 100% safe?

Sir, Laurence Fletcher in Tail Risk of August 28, writes: “Yields on German Bunds and other major government bonds have been moving steadily lower, as prices rise. That has burnished their credentials… as a safe haven in uncertain times”

Sir, how can Eurozone’s sovereigns’ debts, which are not denominated in their own national/printable fiat currency, be considered safe? 

The reasons the interest rates on that debt is low is the direct result of regulatory statism.

Risk weighted bank capital requirements that much favor the access to bank credit of the sovereign over that of the citizens.

That the European Commission assigned a Sovereign Debt Privilege of a 0% risk weight to all Eurozone sovereigns, even when these de facto do not take on debt in a national printable currency.

That ECB’s, with its QEs, have bought up huge amounts of Eurozone sovereign debts.

What would the interest rates on eurozone sovereign debt be if banks had to hold as much capital against their debts, than what they need to hold against European entrepreneurs?

@PerKurowski

So if the taxman/(Big Brother) is now to get a share of the revenues some Big Tech obtain exploiting our personal data… who is going to defend us citizens?

Sir, you deem “The ability of some of the world’s most profitable companies to escape paying fair levels of tax…unfair both to other businesses which do not trade internationally and to governments, which lose substantial revenue” “France leads the way on taxing tech more fairly”, July 12.

It might be unfair to us taxpaying citizens but “unfair to the government”, what on earth do you mean with that? That sounds like something statist redistribution profiteers could predicate but, frankly, the government has no natural right to any income.

And since Big Techs like Facebook and Google obtain most of their revenues by exploiting us citizens’ personal data, then if there were some real search for fairness, a tax on ad revenues from such exploitation should better be returned directly to us, perhaps by helping to fund a universal basic income.

But what ‘s the worst with these taxes is that now effectively governments will be partners with these companies in the exploitation of our data. With such incentives do you really believe our interest will be duly defended? We, who are afraid of what all our data could feed with information a Big Brother government, must now recoil in horror from that we will also be suffering an even richer and more powerful Big Brother.

PS. Sir, it is not the first time I have warned you about this.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/03/our-need-to-concern-ourselves-about-use.html

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-have-some-ideas-about-what-could.html

@PerKurowski

FT, Western liberalism might not be obsolete but it sure isn’t what it was a couple of decades ago.

Sir, with respect to Vladimir Putin’s recent claim — “that liberalism is obsolete” you opine his “triumphalism is misplaced. Not all of liberalism is under threat. The superiority of private enterprise and free markets — at least within individual nations — in creating wealth is no longer seriously challenged.” “No, Mr Putin, western liberalism is not obsolete” June 29.

You are only partly right, because nowadays-Western liberalism is not what it was. 

When regulators allow those that are perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, to be able to offer their risk-adjusted interest rates to banks leveraged many times more than those perceived as risky, as has been the case since 1988, that has absolutely nothing to do with free markets.

And assigning for the risk weighted bank capital requirements a 0% risk weight to sovereigns, and one of 100% to citizens, has nothing to do with “superiority of private enterprise” either. Those risk weights de facto imply that bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they are not personally liable for, than private sector entrepreneurs, and that has much more to do with statist a la Putin regimes.

@PerKurowski

Current bank regulators are closer to a Vladimir Putin type of regime, than to any possible Western world liberal idea.

Sir, I refer to Lionel Barber’s and Henry Foy’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘The liberal idea has become obsolete’ June 28.

Putin is quoted with that “the liberal idea” had “outlived its purpose”.

Sir, there are way too many interpretation of what is “the liberal idea” to know for cartain what is meant by it. That “liberal idea” flag is often waved for quite opposite positions, like more or less government intervention, to assure more or less personal freedoms… to guarantee more or less some human rights… and so on. I guess “liberal” is also something in the eye of the beholder. 

But to me my kind of “liberal idea” took a deep dive, in 1988, with the Basel Accord, one year before the fall of the Berlin wall. Because that accord, Basel I, introduced risk weighted bank capital requirements, which decreed a 0% risk weight to the debts of some friendly sovereigns, and 100% to citizens’ debts.

That de facto implied a belief that government bureaucrats know better what to do with credit they are not personally liable for, than for instance our entrepreneurs. That de facto has much more to do with a Vladimir Putin type of regime, than with any possible Western world liberal idea.

@PerKurowski

There are issues much more important for the future of the euro and the EU than who becomes Draghi’s successor at ECB

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau holds that “Draghi’s successor needs intellectual curiosity and a willingness to admit errors” “How not to select the next ECB president” June 3.

Of course, that should be a sine qua non quality of all candidates. The real problem though is that anyone chosen to become the new president of ECB could get trapped in a web of groupthink, and solidarity requirements, which impede the admittance of the mistakes.

Therefore, before choosing the next president some questions vital to the future of the euro and EU need to be made, not only to denounce mistakes, but to listen what the candidates have to say about it.

For instance if I was a newly elected first time European Union parliamentarian, at the first opportunity given I would ask: 

Fellow parliamentarians: I have heard rumors that even though all the Eurozone sovereigns take on debt denominated in a currency that de facto is not their own domestic printable one; their debts, for the purpose of the risk weighted bank capital requirements, have been assigned a 0% risk weight by European authorities. Is this true or not?

If true does that 0% risk weight, when compared to a 100% risk weight of us European citizens not translate into a subsidy of the Eurozone sovereigns’ bank borrowings or in fact of all Europe's sovereigns?

If so does that not distort the allocation of bank credit in the sense that sovereigns, like Greece, might get too much credit and the citizens, like European entrepreneurs, get too little? And if so would that not signify some regulators, behind our backs, have imposed an unabridged statism on our European Union?

If so, does that not mean that some Eurozone sovereign could run up so much debt they would be seriously tempted to abandon the euro and thereby perhaps endanger our European Union?

Colleagues, I do not know who should answer us these questions, but the candidates to succeed Mario Draghi as president of ECB, should they not at least give us their opinions on it?

@PerKurowski

When are the Italians citizens to speak up against their statist central bankers and regulators?

Sir, Claire Jones and Miles Johnson write: “With economic growth non-existent and government debt at more than 130 per cent of gross domestic product, Italy would struggle without the aggressive monetary easing that Mr Draghi introduced.”, “Italy faces loss of influence in ECB after Draghi leaves” May 27.

Yes, short-term that’s true but, long-term, that’s much more questionable, especially if the regulatory distortions that favor bank credit to sovereigns over that to citizens are kept in place.

Sir, as far as I know, ECB/Draghi has never objected to that for the purpose of the risk weighted bank capital requirements, Italy has been assigned a 0% risk weight, and this even when its debt is not denominated in a domestic printable currency.

De facto that translates into expecting that Italian bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they are not personally responsible for, than what Italian entrepreneurs who would put their own name on the line can do with this; something that we all know can only weaken the economy, that is, unless you are a raving communist.

De facto it also translates into that, sooner or later, in the absence of galloping inflation in the Eurozone, the debt of Italy (and other sovereigns) will become unsustainable. When that happens Italy might have no choice but to give up the euro and return to the lira; something that could even bring the European Union down. If so, how sad that had to happen only because of inept statist central bankers and regulators, asked way too few question.

PS. I wonder how many in the European Union Parliament have asked what would be my first question if I had been elected a first time EU parliamentarian?

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board (FSB)

 

@PerKurowski

The selection of independent central bankers should not be politicized, but neither should the criticism of the candidates be

Sir, you argue that Stephen Moore nor Herman Cain seem to be “remotely qualified to sit in the monetary cockpit of the world’s reserve currency”, “Trump must be stopped from packing the US Fed”, April 6.

Sir, you might very well be right, I know very little about those candidates but I do know that those who have been sitting there for the last decades were perhaps not sufficiently qualified either. 

The 2008 crisis was caused by the distortions in credit allocation produced by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. To then having central bankers to inject huge amounts of stimulus by means of QEs and ultra low interest rates, without removing those distortions, does show they don’t have a sufficient understanding of what they are up to. Sir, what they have achieved is only to kick the crisis can forward and upwards. Let us pray it will not roll back too hard on us, our children or our grandchildren.

Sir, to be sincere, I do believe that FT’ team, with its silence, has lost any right it could have to throw first stones in the matter of who are suited or not to man the Fed, or any other central bank for that matter.

You argue: “The merest hint that Mr Powell is doing Mr Trump’s bidding is enough to corrode the Fed’s independence.” Sir, for the umpteenth time, when the Fed and other central banks, in 1988, Basel I, approved of risk weighted capital requirements for banks that assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign and 100% to the citizens, they went statists and gave up their independence.

In truth they did exactly what a Hugo Chavez or a Nicolas Maduro would want a Venezuelan central banker to do, namely to be act under the presumption that any bank credit to the government is managed better than a credit to the private sector.

Look back three decades; have you seen any president anywhere who objects to such a Sovereign Debt Privilege?

Greece, a Eurozone nation that takes on debt in a currency that is de facto not its domestic printable one, was even more crazily assigned a 0% risk weight, and ECB knew about it, and kept silence on it. I do not remember you thinking ECB’s bankers as inept.

@PerKurowski

The developed world, with their statist bank regulators, has no right to preach market reforms to developing countries.

Sir, Jonathan Wheatley writes that in Mexico: “López Obrador — the old-school leftist has pushed ahead with proposals that… have caused alarm among investors, who worry that overspending will call into question the country’s investment-grade credit ratings.”“Delays to reform threaten prospects of emerging economies” March 26.

Sir, López Obrador is not the only leftist in town… in Basel, there are plenty of them.

Basel II assigns a standardized risk weight of 50% to a sovereign rated like Mexico BBB+. This means that the Basel II capital requirement for holding debt of Mexico is 4% (50%*8%). The Basel II standardized capital requirements for lending to any Mexican entrepreneur rated the same BBB+, is 8%. And so, according to the Basel Committee banks are allowed to leverage their capital 25 times their when lending to Mr López Obrador’s government, than when lending to a BBB+ or an unrated Mexican entrepreneur.

So please, do not come and preach us about internal market reforms in developing nations when external global regulators impose such statist and distorting regulations on them.

In 2007, at the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Developing at the United Nations, I presented a document titled “Are the Basel bank regulations good for development?”. My answer was a clearly argued “No!” But, of course, my chances to be heard by a U.N. Commission on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System chaired by Professor Joseph Stiglitz were none.

@PerKurowski

What could “megaprojects” have taught us about the EU and the euro?

Sir, Tim Harford, with the help of Bent Flyvbjerg, “perhaps the world’s leading authority on ‘megaprojects’”, analyzes Brexit “What megaprojects can teach us about Brexit” October 26.

It is a useful exercise though I keep on being surprised by how little attention is given to other closely related megaprojects such as that of the European Union and the euro. 

A complete Brexit project should analyze the costs for Britain of EU not solving the much-ignored challenges the euro poses to EU, as these could be huge. Anyone proposing a Remain, should at least try to get a clear answer from EU on what it intends to do to make absolutely certain the euro will not bring EU down, or if that happens that at least non-euro members are not called to share in its costs.

I have no idea if the EU/euro project was “prepared thoroughly”, without “well-known cognitive biases”, or if it was carried out by “an experienced team”.

But when it comes to “try to break a large project into smaller, standalone chunks, so that the failure of one is not a failure of everything” clearly that’s not the case here, since the failure of the euro could quite likely bring the EU down.

The “everyone having an incentive to make things move smoothly” is doubtful too. Surplus countries find it easier to live with a euro weakened by deficit countries, though that does not work the other way round.

With respect to having an early warning system, so problems can be spotted and fixed before they grow, I seriously doubt it exists. Especially since EU authorities seriously compounded any euro challenges with statist “Sovereign Debt Privileges”, that which assigns a 0%capital requirements for banks when holding eurozone’ sovereign debts denominated in euros... a currency that in most generous terms could qualify as quasi domestic.

The challenges for EU of the euro must have been well known.

@PerKurowski