There’s a difference between unwanted recessions and recessions resulting from having other priorities than growth

Sir, Robin Harding asks whether we should use the term recession for an economy that is decreasing as a consequence of demographics. “Recession is a word in need of a rethink” November 14.

He sure has a point and perhaps we should measure economic growth on a per capita basis.

In the same vein, may I express doubts on whether we should use the term recession when the decreasing economic growth is a direct consequence of calling it quits… meaning not wanting to risk what we already got in order to get anything better.

Because, calling it quits that is what bank regulators did, when they allowed banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on what is perceived ex ante as safe, than on what is perceived as risky.

I mean should there not be a difference between an unwanted recession and a recession that results from prioritizing other wishes?

Most current “recessions” are not unexpected consequences they are the natural results of someone meddling with the markets.

@PerKurowski ©

Wishful thinking should follow the do-no-harm principle, and the Basel Committee clearly violated it.

Sir, Tim Harford writes about wishful thinking plans having secondary unexpected unwished consequences “Why wishful thinking doesn’t work” July 12.

Yes any wishful thinker should make a declaration before he puts his wishes in action that he has seriously adhered to the principle of do-no-harm.

For instance, the perceived credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more-risk-more-capital / less-risk-less-capital, must represent one of the greatest wishful thinking gone wrong.

Bank regulators wishfully thought they could with these bring stability to the banking system, though it is not too clear why did thought they would do that more by saving banks than by hurrying the demise of bad banks. It would have saved us a lot of tears (and jobs) had they, by following the do-no-harm principle, asked themselves the simple following two questions:

Might we dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit the real economy?

Might we send off banks into accumulating excessively some assets that ex ante might have been erroneously perceived as safe, and then when ex post these turn out to be very risky, banks stand there naked with too little capital?

How sad they did not do it… how tragic they still do not do it.

@PerKurowski

With the Basel Committee’s injudicious regulations, it is very difficult for a bank to give credit judiciously.

Sir, Henny Sender holds that “Banks must lend more judiciously to prosper in emerging markets” April 8. Who could disagree with that? That applies of course to all markets and not only emerging markets.

But in order to do that, banks need to focus 100 percent on the borrower and not, as now, spend too much time looking at how it can structure the loan so as to be required to hold the least of equity against it.

When we read about Stan-Chart’s “commodity-related exposures” and that “much of the lending uses property as collateral” one gets the feeling that perhaps the “minimize the equity” objective might have triumphed the “know your client” criteria.

And this is but one of the should-be-expected, unexpected consequences of the Basel Committee’s injudiciously distorting credit-risk-weighted capital requirements..

@PerKurowski

Never allow anything to be classified as unexpected or unintended consequences, unless proven beyond doubts to be such.

Sir, I refer to Gillian Tett’s “Emerging markets brace for a bumpy ride” September 19.

I agree with absolutely all she writes about the losses many emerging nations suffered with their exposure to derivatives in 2008 “when the dollar suddenly surged in value as a safe haven currency”, except for when she argues“It is a lesson in unexpected consequences in a tightly interconnected world”.

As I see it, nothing should be classified as an unexpected, or much less an unintended consequence, if it has not been proven to be beyond any reasonable doubt to be so. Otherwise it just serves as an excuse for stupid behavior.

For instance, in January 2003 in FT I wrote “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds” and I was no bank regulator.

And so no one should be allowed to talk about unexpected or unintended consequences of ordering the banks to follow so much the credit ratings as Basel II did. But yet, how often have you not heard about the unexpected or unintended consequence of credit rating agencies not rating correctly?

In the real world, not the world of unaccountable regulators, anyone guilty of such a mistake, would have had two minutes to collect his personal items and hit the door, never to return. And yet there they are as if nothing happened… even expected to save the day.

Could what happened because of the exposures in derivatives Tett describes not be an unexpected consequence? Of course it could... but let them prove it to us first.