Contrary to Gordon Brown, current bank regulators do not dare to take questions, they might not be able to answer
Sir, as truly responsible elite should behave, Lucy Kellaway takes society at task with her “There is nothing cute about innumeracy” May 8.
In it Kellaway refers to how a kid, almost 20 years ago, asked Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, “what is 13 squared?” and got a correct answer.
I argue that the current risk weighted capital requirements for banks are dangerously nonsensical, and that is why I have been asking bank regulators many questions about these, during about 20 years too. I have not had that kid’s luck.
For instance, when I ask why they give what is AAA rated, that we know banks could be building up dangerous exposures to, a risk weight of only 20%, while the so innocuous below BB-, that which bankers would not touch with a ten foot pole, is handed a 150%, their eyes go blank, and they nod to each other either “what the hell is he talking about?” or “does he not understand that risky is risky and safe is safe?”
If I ask them how much they feel authorized to distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy in pursue of an elusive financial stability, then they ignore me completely.
Frankly, how can a society allow its banks to be regulated by those that, knowing as they should that bank capital is to be there to cover for the unexpected, are so dumb so as to base their capital requirements on what’s expected?
Here follows a link to some of my many questions that have never received an answer.
How is it that “Without fear” FT, contrary to that young kid who asked Gordon Brown, does not dare to ask bank regulators these questions?
@PerKurowski
Posts
